

























































































THE J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM LIBRARY 














CATALOGUE OF 
GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 
IN THE 
MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, BOSTON 


a a 


ot ee eee. 





= ™ - 
‘ = 
_ 
Fi 
0 ~ 


THE J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM 
2 “IRAP b 


J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM 


THE 


LIBRARY AS 22 


MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, BOSTON 


CATALOGUE 


OF 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE , 


BY 


L. D. CASKEY 


CURATOR OF CLASSICAL ANTIQUITIES 





AE pe 
bas, 


PUBLISHED FOR THE 
MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, BOSTON 


BY THE 
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS 
CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 


1925 





COPYRIGHT, 1925 
BY THE MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, BOSTON 


ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 


PRINTED AT THE HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS _ 

é . Pa Po ~ ci in 
CAMBRIDGE, MASS., U.S.A, a 
=a’ died. fa, 


in 7s 
‘sy Jor eee 


PREFACE 


Tus catalogue is limited to Greek and Roman sculpture executed in 
marble or other stone. Inscriptions and architectural members are ex- 
cluded, as well as Cypriote, Etruscan and Palmyrene sculpture; also a few 
works held to be of modern origin or of such inferior merit from any point 
of view that their publication seems valueless. Two bronze heads (nos. 65, 
132) and one in terra-cotta (no. 108) have been added because of their in- 
terest in connection with the Hellenistic and Roman portraits in marble, 
and a painted stele (no. 46) is included because it supplements the series of 
Greek grave monuments. 

The formation of the collection falls into three periods: (1) from the 
foundation of the Museum to 1894; (2) from 1895 to 1904; (3) from 1905 
onwards. Twelve of the pieces described were acquired during the first 
period. Among them are the only works of sculpture included in the cata- 
logue which the Museum has received directly from scientific excavations 
(nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9) and four Roman portraits obtained through Comm. 
Lanciani (nos. 111, 113, 133, 134). The systematic purchase of classical 
antiquities began in 1895, and was continued for ten years through Mr. 
Edward Perry Warren and Mr. John Marshall by the aid of the bequest of 
Mrs. Catharine Page Perkins, a large portion of that of Mr. Henry Lillie 
Pierce, and a gift by Mr. Francis Bartlett. The ninety-six pieces of sculp- 
ture acquired during this decade were all obtained through Mr. Warren 
and Mr. Marshall. Since 1904, when the organized collecting for the Clas- 
sical Department ceased, twenty-five marbles have been added to the col- 
lection; and eleven of these also were obtained with the codperation of Mr. 
Warren (nos. 11, 14, 16, 17, 29, 31, 49, 54, 64, 100, 116). They include the 
two most important works — the three-sided relief (no. 17) received in 
1908, and the head of a goddess from Chios (no. 29) given in 1910 by Mr. 
Nathaniel Thayer. The achievement of Mr. Warren, Mr. Marshall, and 


eve) 


PREFACE 


their collaborators, among whom was Mr. Matthew Stewart Prichard, was 
characterised in the report of the President of the Museum for 1904 as 
follows: ‘‘A collection of original works of classical art has been made 
which serves worthily to illustrate the expression in art of the Hellenic 
genius. The aim of its creators has been to acquire noble works charac- 
teristic of all phases of this development. . . . To amass a series of works 
in marble, bronze, terra-cotta, and precious metals equal to that in our 
possession has required, on the part of the collectors, the expenditure of 
such an amount of time, money, and patience directed by great knowledge, 
that it is difficult to believe the happy combination could ever exist or 
recur.” 

Only a small part of this achievement, numerically considered, is repre- 
sented in the present catalogue. As indicated in the statement just quoted, 
the creation of a collection of sculpture was not the object chiefly held in 
view. It is significant that the classes of marbles which have come upon 
the market in greatest numbers during recent years — Graeco-Roman 
copies, Roman portraits and Attic grave reliefs — are illustrated by com- 
paratively few, carefully selected examples. And, according to the classi- 
fication adopted, the original Greek works (nos. 1-59) outnumber those 
assigned to copyists of the Graeco-Roman period (nos. 60-107). 

In preparing the catalogue I have used, in addition to the published dis- 
cussions listed in the bibliographies, manuscript notes which accompanied 
each sending during the years 1895 to 1904. From these ‘Sending Lists,” 
summarising the fuller records kept at Lewes House, the statements of 
provenience are chiefly derived. The lists include also notes on the material 
and state of preservation of the objects, as well as many valuable sugges- 
tions regarding attributions and stylistic parallels contributed chiefly by 
Mr. Marshall. From 1886 to 1919 the objects added to the classical col- 
lections each year were described in the Annual Reports of the Museum. 
The majority of these descriptions were written, with the help of the 
Sending Lists, by Dr. Edward Robinson, Curator of the Department 
from its organization in 1886 till 1904. Since 1903 accounts of the more 


[vi 


PREFACE 


important acquisitions have also appeared in the Bulletin. I have made 
free use of these earlier publications of the Museum, even to the extent 
of incorporating phrases, sentences or longer passages, usually without 
quotation marks. Finally, I have had at my disposal a few records of 
opinions expressed in conversation by scholars who have visited the col- 
lections during the past twenty years. For most of the aid thus received 
I am able to make only this general acknowledgment. 

Nearly a hundred of the illustrations are from photographs by Mr. E. J. 
Moore, photographer of the Museum; fifty-four are by Mr. Baldwin 
Coolidge; eighteen by Mr. E. E. Soderholtz; twenty-eight by Professor 
Clarence Kennedy of Smith College. 

L. D. C. 


[ vii | 





CONTENTS 


CATALOGUE 
ARCHAIC PrrRiIopD, 600-480 B.c. (Nos. 1-13) 
FirtH Century, 480-450 s.c. (Nos. 14-17) . . . 
FirtH Century, 450-400 B.c. (Nos. 18-24) . . . 
FourtH Crntury, 400-323 B.c. (Nos. 25-49) . . . 


HELLENISTIC PERIOD, 323-100 B.c. (Nos. 50-59) . 


GrRAECO-RoMAN PeEriop, 100 B.c.—-200 a.p. (Nos. 60-107) . 


Roman Portraits (Nos. 108-134) . 
List oF Donors 
INDEX OF PUBLICATIONS CITED IN ABBREVIATED Form . 
INDEX OF INVENTORY NUMBERS . 


GENERAL INDEX . 


[ix ] 


106 
124 
189 
228 
229 
230 
231 





CATALOGUE OF 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 
IN THE 


MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, BOSTON 





— Tees “yy ~ 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


1. STANDING MALE STATUETTE 


Alabaster. Height, 0.145 m. 

Missing, the head, and the legs from just above the knees. The front of the left upper arm 
is injured.: 

From the Temenos of Aphrodite, Naukratis. 

Gift of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1888. 

Iny. 88.734. Ann. Rep. 1888, pp. 18 ff. Déonna, Les Apollons archaiques, p. 245, no. 150, 
figs. 172-174. Cf. Kieseritzky, Jahrbuch, VII, 1892, p. 181. 


The nude figure stands in the frontal pose of the archaic “Apollos,” 
with the left leg advanced and the arms held close to the sides. The hair 
falls in three long straight locks at either side of the neck; at the back it 
lies flat, and is cut off square between the shoulders, the strands being in- 
dicated by vertical incised lines. The shoulders are broad, the chest very 
prominent, the hips narrow, the thighs large, especially in the profile view. 
The abdominal muscles and the navel are not indicated. 

This statuette and the head, no. 2, are to be associated with a small 
group of similar works, most of which were also found in the excavations at 
Naukratis. Thirteen examples are cited by Déonna, op. cit., pp. 241 ff., 
nos. 142-154. Three of them come from the sanctuary of Apollo, the pres- 
ent example from that of Aphrodite. All are evidently votive offerings, 
and judging from their material (alabaster or limestone), probably of local 
workmanship. A special interest attaches to their discovery on this site, 
since it is now generally believed that the Greek ‘‘ Apollo” or kodpos type 
of statue was developed under Egyptian influence. Robinson, in the 
Annual Report, suggests that such small figures as these, made first at 
Naukratis and spread as commercial commodities through Greece, may 
have served as models for the sculptors of the first Greek “ Apollos.’”’ None 
of the statuettes is, however, demonstrably earlier or more Egyptian in 
style than a great number of the statues of this type found in Greece proper. 
In his publication of the statuette in Petrograd Kieseritzky claims that 
the detailed execution of the head and the comparatively careless model- 
ling of the body are Egyptian characteristics. But this argument has no 
more weight than the reasons which have led another scholar to call the 


[3] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


same statuette Samian (Studniczka, in Miller, Nacktheit und Entbléssung, 
p. 112), and still another to assign it to the Cretan school (Klein, Ge- 
schichte der griechischen Kunst, I, p. 84). Déonna, who regards Cyprus 
as a more important connecting link between Egypt and Greece, assigns 
the whole group of statuettes from Naukratis to a Cypriote school. This 





* 
) 
= 
} 


oth 


a 





theory, again, is entirely unsupported by evidence, since no early example 
of the nude Apollo type has yet been found in Cyprus. Moreover, ala- 
baster, which was a very common material in Egypt, was not used for 
sculpture in Cyprus. A more reasonable view of this series of statuettes 
is expressed by Edgar in the Catalogue of Greck Sculpture in the Cairo 
Museum, p. IV: ‘They are copies, probably made in Naukratis, of types 
which, originally derived from Egypt, had already become hellenised in the 
cities of the Aegean sea.” 

This statuette, though not one of the most primitive of the group, is 
probably to be dated early in the sixth century B.c. 


Ech! 


ARCHAIC PERIOD 


2. SMALL Mate Heap 
Alabaster. Height, 0.054 m. 
The nose and chin are injured, and the surface is badly weathered. From Naukratis. 
Gift of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1888. 
Inv. 88.730. Ann. Rep. 1888, p. 18. Déonna, Les Apollons archaiques, p. 246, no. 151, figs. 175, 

176. Cf. Kieseritzky, Jahrbuch, VII, 1892, p. 181. 

This head is from a statuette similar to no. 1, but of better workman- 
ship. The face is of a long oval shape, the skull very narrow from front 
to back. The long hair is carried in wavy 
lines from the middle of the forehead behind 
the ears. At the back it falls in a broad, flat 
mass covered by a network of fine diagonal 
lines; in front several locks, with vertical 
and horizontal lines incised upon them, fall on 
the shoulders. The eyes are large and almond- 
shaped, with protruding, rounded eyeballs; the | 
mouth is moderately smiling; the ears are | 
exaggerated in size and set too high. The _ 
outlines of the eyes are carefully traced in 
black paint, remains of which are also visible 
on the iris, on the hair, and on the left side 
of the upper lip. The unusual detail of a moustache appears also on the 
statuette in Petrograd published by Kieseritzky. 





3. STATUE OF A MAN 


Close-grained, cream-colored limestone. Height, 0.75 m. 

Missing, the legs from the middle of the thighs, the right forearm, the left hand, the tip of the nose. 
The head and part of the right arm have been broken off and reattached. An injury in the 
region of the left breast has been repaired with some restoration in plaster. 

Said to have been found on one of the Greek islands. 

Gift of Denman W. Ross, 1917. 

Inv. 17.598. Ann. Rep. 1914, p. 96; 1917, p. 92. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 16, fig. 17. 


The nude figure, represented at somewhat under life-size, stood in 
the frontal pose, with the left leg probably advanced. His left arm is 
held down close to his side. His right arm, as is shown by traces on the hip, 
was bent and advanced; the hand may have held an attribute. 


[5] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


The head is large in proportion to the body, and remarkable in the pro- 
file view for the narrowness of the skull from front to back, as well as for 
the elongated, dome-shaped crown, and the flat, receding forehead. The 
brows are arched, the depression beneath them being treated as shallow 
grooves. A certain animation and individual character are given to the face 
by the slightly oblique setting of the large, almond-shaped eyes, by the 
prominence of the cheek-bones, the upper jaw and the end of the chin, 
and by the drawing up of the corners 
of the mouth into the hollows of the 
cheeks. 

The strands of the hair are treated 
like chaplets of beads, radiating from 
the crown. Over the forehead the 
strands end in spirals, curling inward 
on either side of the central parting. 
The back-hair falls in a broad mass 
standing out at both sides, and cut 
off square at the base of the neck. A 
simple fillet encircles the head. The 
upper lip is smooth, but a moustache 
may have been indicated by color. 

The body is poorly proportioned, 
the shoulders being very broad and 
heavy, the lower part of the trunk nar- 
row and flat, the forearms too short. 

An attempt to determine the school 
of sculpture to which the statue be- 
longs can be based only on the evidence of its style, since the statement 
as to its provenience is vague, and the material has not been identified. 
The closest analogy is afforded by the Rampin head in the Louvre, one of 
the masterpieces of early Attic art (Reinach, Recueil de tétes antiques, pls. 
3, 4). Except for the simple fillet in place of the wreath of oak-leaves the 
treatment of the hair and beard is identical in the two works. The Attic 
fashion of wearing the hair half long is illustrated also by several limestone 
heads from the Acropolis, cf. the heads of the triple monster (Dickins, 


[6 ] 





ARCHAIC PERIOD 


Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum, I, no. 35); the head of Zeus, ibid., p. 
62; a small head published in “Ednpepis ’Apxatohoyixn, 1891, pl. xrv, right; 
and the head of Aristion on the well-known stele. On the other hand, 
the slanting, almond-shaped eyes and the shape of the skull are Ionian 
characteristics. The statue may be the work of a provincial sculptor, who 
used Attic models at a time when Ionic influence had become strong. 
It is probably to be dated in the third quarter of the sixth century B.c. 


4. Smatt HEAD oF A YOUTH 


Close-grained limestone. Height, 0.08 m. 

Slightly injured on the right temple and the side of the jaw. 
From Greece. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1900. 

Inv. 00.312. Ann. Rep. 1900, p. 29, no. 9. 


This fragment is apparently from a small pedimental group or a relief: 
a projection is left on the right side of the neck, and the right ear is hardly 





indicated, suggesting that this side was not meant to be seen. The head 
is rather square in shape. The eyes, set nearly on a plane with the fore- 
head, are large and wide open, the lower lid being nearly straight, the upper 
strongly arched. The nose is long and pointed, the mouth curved to form 
the archaic smile. The hair is treated as a smooth mass, with scalloped 


ese 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


edges along the forehead, and apparently caught up in a roll behind the 
ears. 

The shape of the eyes and the scalloped border of the hair connect the 
head with the early Attic limestone sculptures found on the Acropolis. 


5. FrEMALE Hap 


Limestone. Height, 0.175 m. Length of face, 0.10 m. 

The tip of the nose is missing, and parts of the hair are slightly damaged; otherwise the 
surface is in perfect condition, with traces of the original polychrome decoration. 

Found at Sikyon. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1904. 

Inv. 04.10. Ann. Rep. 1904, p. 53, no. 1. Burlington Fine Arts Club, Exhibition of Ancient 
Greek Art, 1903; Catalogue, p. 80, no. 49. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 20, 
fig. 22. 


This head has been broken from a statue of about half life-size, most 
probably a standing figure of the type of the maidens from the Athenian 
Acropolis. The face is long and narrow, with slanting eyes, thin nose, prom- 
inent cheek-bones, a crescent-shaped mouth and a rounded chin. The 
upper part is flat, with rather abrupt transitions to the sides; and the eyes 
are sunk very little beneath the plane of the forehead. The almond-shaped 
eyeballs are moderately convex; the lids are treated as thin ridges pro- 
longed at the inner corners to show the lachrymal glands; the eyebrows are 
indicated plastically. The ears are large, but correctly placed, with earrings 
in the form of a concave disc with a raised eye. She wears a flat circlet, or 
stephane, fitting the contour of her head. Below this the hair is brought 
down upon the forehead in fourteen long ringlets, with shallow, wavy 
grooves terminating in spirals carved on them. A parting runs across the 
crown, and from this simple strands, more numerous than those on the 
forehead, are carried to the front and rear. The back-hair is arranged in 
large locks formed by vertical and slightly curved horizontal: grooves, 
which divide the mass into squares with chamfered edges. Two such locks 
fell on the front of each shoulder, ten on the back. The hair was colored 
red, as were the lips. The stephane and the ear-dises were blue. 

The modelling of the upper part of the face suggests that this head, like 
most of the sculptures in poros, is to be dated fairly early in the archaic 
period. Since the material is undoubtedly local, the work is probably to be 
assigned to a native rather than to a foreign artist. But, in either case, it 


[8] 


ARCHAIC PERIOD 


shows that a strong Ionic influence had made itself felt at Sikyon, as at 
Athens, by the middle of the sixth century sp.c. The long oval face, the 
slanting eyes and smiling mouth, the schematic treatment of the hair, the 





forms of the stephane and ear-discs are all characteristics which connect 
the head closely with those of the Acropolis maidens which are ascribed to 
Ionic sculptors. 

The surface, which is almost as fresh as when it left the sculptor’s hands, 
shows a precision and delicacy of execution hardly equalled among extant 
sculptures in limestone. 


6. FRAGMENTARY FEMALE HEAD 


Fine-grained Greek marble. Height, 0.145 m. 

The face only is preserved, having been split off vertically in front of the ears. The top is 
a smoothed surface, rising slightly in shallow curves from the sides to a central ridge. 

The forehead and nose are broken off. 

From Taranto. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1900. 

Inv. 00.307. Ann. Rep. 1900, p. 26, no. 3. 


The working of the top surface of the fragment suggests that the head 
was helmeted, and therefore represented Athena. The face is broad, with 


[9] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


well-rounded jaw and prominent chin. The hair, which shows only at the 
temples, is drawn to the sides in thick masses of crinkly waves. The eyes 
are long, almond-shaped, and very slightly inclined. The lids, though they - 





project very little from the eyeballs, are sharply defined, even undercut, 
around their outer edges, giving the eyes the appearance of having been 
affixed to the face, instead of carved with it. 

Original Greek work of about 480 B.c. 


7. HERAKLES PuRSUING CENTAURS, RELIEF FROM THE 
ARCHITRAVE OF THE TEMPLE AT ASSOS 


Trachyte. Height, 0.82 m.; length, 2.48 m. 

Broken in two; incomplete at the left end; the upper right-hand corner broken off. 

Found in 1881 in the foundations of the rampart at the southwest angle of the citadel at Assos. 

Gift of the Archaeological Institute of America, 1884. 

Inv. 84.67. J.C. Clarke, Report on the Investigations at Assos, 1881 (Papers of the Archaeological 
Institute, Classical Series I, 1882), p. 53, pl. 15; pp. 107 ff. The same, Report on the Investi- 
gations at Assos, 1882, 1883 (Papers, etc. II, 1898) pp. 150ff., fig. 37. Friedrichs-Wolters, 
Gipsabgiisse, no. 11. Collignon, Histoire de la sculpture grecque, I, p. 183, fig. 85. Perrot, Histoire 
de l'art dans Vantiquté, VIII, p. 256, fig. 102. Baur, Centaurs in Ancient Art, p. 68, no. 182. 
Sartiaux, Rev. Arch. XXII, 1913, p. 29, no. 111, fig. 9. Cf. ibid., pp. 359-389; XXIII, 1914, 
pp. 191-222, 381-412. Investigations at Assos, Part I, p. 147, fig. 2. Chase, Greek and Roman 
Sculpture, p. 24, fig. 26. 


The block shows at the top the taenia and regula (without guttae) of a 
Doric architrave, at the bottom a similar taenia, and at the right end a 


[10] 


ARCHAIC PERIOD 


narrower raised band. Within this frame is a representation in low relief 
of the adventure of Herakles with the centaurs of Mt. Pholoé. At the left 
end the upper part of the centaur Pholos, the host of Herakles, is preserved. 
He is bearded, nude, and to be restored with human forelegs. He holds a 
large wine cup in his right hand, and lifts his left in a gesture of astonish- 
ment. In front of him Herakles, beardless and nude, stands in profile to 
the right, bending forward, with his left leg advanced, and drawing his bow. 
Before him three centaurs flee rapidly to the right. All three are bearded 
and have human forelegs. The first and third look back as they run, and 








carry what appear to be clubs, one in his right, the other in his left hand. 
The one in the centre is without a weapon, and stretches out one arm in 
front and one behind him. The lower parts of all three centaurs are 
exactly alike: the left foreleg is advanced, the equine hind legs are placed 
side by side, overlapping the thigh of the following figure. 

Parts of three other architrave blocks from the temple with centaurs 
galloping to the right, as well as two metopes with single figures of cen- 
taurs, are preserved in Paris and Constantinople. Of the various theories 
which have been proposed as to their arrangement that of Sartiaux is the 
most satisfactory. According to him the block just described was placed 
over the central intercolumniation of one of the fronts. The slabs in Paris 
are to be assigned to the two intercolumniations to the left; they show 
centaurs approaching attracted by the smell of the wine. The slab in Con- 
stantinople, to be placed at the right end of the fagade, and an intermediate 
slab, which is lost, show centaurs in flight. It is noteworthy that all the 
centaurs except those on the central slab have equine forelegs. 

On the style and date of these reliefs see under no. 8. 


Li] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


8. Two SPHINXES, RELIEF FROM THE ARCHITRAVE OF THE 
TEMPLE AT ASSOS 


Trachyte. Height, 0.82 m.; length, 1.90 m. 


Broken in two. The upper edge of the left-hand fragment is injured. Complete at the left end. The 
missing portion of the block, including the body of the right-hand sphinx, is in Constantinople. 

Found in 1881 in a mediaeval wall at the northwest part of the citadel at Assos. 

Gift of the Archaeological Institute of America, 1884. 

Inv. 84.68. J. C. Clarke, Report, 1881, p. 33, pl. 16; pp. 111 ff. Report, 1882, 1883, pp. 178 ff., 
fig. 41. Robinson, Catalogue of Casts, no. 178. Sartiaux, Rev. Arch. XXII, 1913, p. 34, no. vim, 
fig. 14. Investigations at Assos, Part II, p. 147, fig. 1. The fragment in Constantinople is dis- 
cussed by Mendel, Catalogue des sculptures, Musées impériaux Ottomans, Vol. II, no. 158. 


Two recumbent sphinxes placed heraldically facing one another oc- 
cupy the whole face of this block. They are carved in somewhat higher 
relief than the figures on the preceding fragment. In the centre between 





them is a small, slender column surmounted by a rudimentary Ionic capital. 
Each sphinx rests one forepaw on this capital, while the other foreleg is laid 
along the ground. Their wings curve upward and have rounded tips; their 
tails are s-shaped, with a tuft at the end. The heads are of a distinctly 
archaic type, with receding forehead, prominent nose, small, rounded chin, 
lips twisted up in a smile, and large eye shown in front view. The hair is 
drawn back behind the ears, and falls in a thick mass on the neck. 

The fragments of a second architrave with an almost exact duplicate of 
this design are preserved in Paris and Constantinople. Clarke assigns the 
two blocks to the central intercolumniations at either end of the temple. 
This has, however, been shown to be improbable by Sartiaux, who places 
them at the two ends of one facade (Rev. Arch. XXIII, 1914, p. 220, fig. 45). 


[12] 


ARCHAIC PERIOD 


The extant sculptures from the temple at Assos include in all fifteen 
architrave blocks, mostly incomplete, and portions of eight metopes. Ten 
of the former and three of the latter were taken to Paris in 1838. The 
others were excavated by the American expedition in 1881-83 (three frag- 
ments remained unnoticed till 1896), and, with the exception of the two 
blocks here described, were removed to Constantinople. The whole series 
is best reproduced in Investigations at Assos, Part II, pp. 147-151. The 
most recent and satisfactory discussion is by Sartiaux, Rev. Arch. I. c. 

Aside from the temple of Athena Polias at Pergamon, which is of late 
date, the temple at Assos is the only known example of the Doric style in 
Asia Minor; and it is unique among Doric buildings in having a sculptured 
architrave. This departure from the principle that the structural members 
of the Doric order shall be left plain is evidently due to the influence of the 
Ionian temples with their richly ornamented friezes. The subjects of most 
of the reliefs — animals attacking their prey, animals or sphinxes heral- 
dically grouped —are also common decorative motives in archaic Ionic art. 
On the other hand the introduction of two episodes from the myth of 
Herakles, the effort to represent vigorous motion, the predominance of 
nude figures, and above all the adoption of the Doric style point to some 
foreign influence from the west, possibly, as Sartiaux has suggested, that of 
Athens, which is known to have had close relations with Aeolis during the 
sixth century B.C. 

According to a theory first advanced by Semper (Der Stil, I, p. 406), 
and repeated by most commentators since, the prototypes of these sculp- 
tures are to be sought in the bronze repoussé reliefs with which the Ionians 
are supposed to have sheathed their wooden entablatures in imitation of 
an oriental practice. But the vagueness of the evidence in favor of this 
theory has been rightly emphasised by Norton (A. J. A. I, 1897, p. 572) 
and Sartiaux (Rev. Arch. XXII, 1913, p. 372). Recent discoveries have in 
fact shown that the Assos reliefs were derived from revetments of terra- 
cotta rather than of bronze. Fragments of such terra-cotta revetments of 
wooden entablatures have been found at Larisa, Ak-alan and Gordion — 
all in the Aeolian region. And two at least of the subjects represented on 
the Assos architrave — the adventure of Herakles on Mt. Pholoé and the 
banquet scene — occur on the terra-cottas (cf. Koch, Rém. Mitt. XXX, 


[13 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


1915, pp. 8, 14, 20, 44 and Baur, Centaurs in Ancient Art, p. 70, no. 183, 
pl. xiv, a-d). 

Opinions have differed widely with regard to the dating of the temple at 
Assos. Judging from the style of the sculptures most authorities have 
assigned the building to the early archaic period, i. e., to the neighborhood 
of the year 600 B.c., or at least to the first half of the sixth century. Clarke, 
on architectural grounds, would make the temple contemporary with the 
Theseum at Athens. But his theory has won no adherents. It is impos- 
sible to bring the sculptures down below the sixth century, besides which, 
as Sartiaux has pointed out, the architecture contains numerous archaic 
features. On the other hand it is probable that the date formerly assigned 
is too early. The very primitive appearance of some of the figures, such 
as the three fleeing centaurs, and the lack of much detailed modelling may 
be due partly to the shortcomings of a provincial artist and still more to 
the coarse and brittle stone which was not a suitable material for sculpture. 
A date in the third quarter of the sixth century best agrees with the style 
of both the reliefs and the architecture. 


9. Lion’s HEAD FROM THE SIMA OF THE TEMPLE AT Assos 


Tufa. Length, 0.267 m. 

Missing, the lower jaw, the upper part of the right side and most of the right ear. The 

surface is badly worn. 

Found at Assos, 1881. 

Gift of the Archaeological Institute of America, 1884. 

Inv. 84.71. Report on the Investigations at Assos, 1881 (Papers of the Archaeological In- 

stitute, Classical Series I) p. 94, pl. 12. Investigations at Assos, p. 169, fig. 1. 

This is one of the four lion’s heads which decorated the corners of the 
gable sima of the temple. It is carved of a local voleanic stone, lighter and 
softer than the trachyte of which the temple as a whole was built, and 
consequently a more suitable material for sculpture. The animal was 
represented as usually with staring eyes and widely opened jaws. Nothing 
remains of the mane except its border along the forehead. The ears were 
erect. A depression running up the forehead from the inner corner of the 
left eyebrow to the ear is accentuated by a narrow rounded fillet carved in 
relief upon it. The eyes are very widely opened, with their outlines deeply 
and sharply cut; the iris and pupil are incised. The forehead is marked off 


[14] 


ARCHAIC PERIOD 





from the nose only by two faintly incised lines. The upper lip is treated as 
a flat raised band curving up at the front and continued till it meets the 
nose. Five deep wrinkles are carved on either side of the muzzle, and 
there are traces of similar grooves along the nose. Three of the teeth on 
the left side are well preserved. 


10. SeatrEeD LION 


Close-grained white limestone. Height, including plinth, 0.953 m. Length of plinth at back, 
0.52 m.; width, 0.245 m. 

The upper part is considerably repaired, with some restoration. The head is preserved in three 
pieces, and the broken edges of the joints have been filled with plaster. The restorations, 
indicated by hatching in the accompanying drawing, include 
part of the forehead, all of the fillet above it except for a small 
piece at the right end, the lower portions of some of the lower 
series of locks above the forehead, the whole of the left ear 
with the two locks in front of it, the tip of the right ear, all 
of the upper row of locks except the two at the left end, and 
a number of locks on the breast and back. A hole in the back 
below the mane has been filled up. The lower row of teeth and 
the tongue are injured. The extensive remains of red and blue 
paint which are said to have been visible when the statue was 
found have disappeared, except for slight traces of a bright red 
pigment on the right foreleg. The surface has weathered to a 
deep brownish-red tone. Four cuttings in the edge of the plinth 
(one at each end, two at the back) held swallow-tail clamps by 
which the statue was fastened to its pedestal. 

Found in 1890 at Perachora, above Loutraki, on the Isthmus of Corinth. 

Catharine Page Perkins Collection, 1897. 









Gy 


[15 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


Inv. 97.289. Ann. Rep. 1897, p. 21, no. 5. ‘“Eoria 1891, p. 208; Karpoi, March 29, 1891 (accounts 
of the finding of the statue in two Athenian newspapers). B.C.H. XV, 1891, p. 445. Berliner 
philologische Wochenschrift, 1891, p. 578. Perdrizet, Rev. Arch. XXX, 1897, p. 134, pl. 1v. 
Lechat, Revue des études grecques, 1898, p. 184. Reinach, Répertoire II, p. 713, 4. Brunn- 
Bruckmann-Arndt, Denkméiler, pl. 641, with comment by Schréder. Chase, Greek and Roman 
Sculpture, p. 22, fig. 25. 


The lion is seated on a low, cushion-like plinth, with his head turned to 
face the spectator, while his body appears in profile to the right. The jaws 





are widely opened, as if the animal were conceived as roaring. The tail is 
laid along the front edge of the plinth. 

The statue was presumably erected upon a low pillar as a monument 
over a grave, and, like the figures of sphinxes which were commonly used 
for the same purpose, was regarded as having an apotropaic force (cf. 
Collignon, Les statues funéraires, pp. 81 ff.). The conception of the lion 


[16 ] 


ARCHAIC PERIOD 


as a symbol of courage, illustrated by the famous monument of the Thebans 
who fell at the battle of Chaeronea, belongs to a later period. 

The figure was designed to be seen from one point of view in which the 
most significant aspects of the head (the full-face) and the body (the pro- 
file) are combined. But the ferocity of the beast is more successfully 
shown by the profile view of the head with its widespread jaws. In the 
front view, in spite of the round, glaring eyes, the lion has a bland, almost 














friendly expression, due to the failure to accentuate the structure of the 


forehead. The swelling muscles of chest and forelegs give a suggestion of 
strength, but the modelling of the hind legs is clumsy. The ribs are ren- 
dered by five parallel depressions. Such details as the outlines of the eyes, 
the wrinkles on the muzzle, the teeth, the claws and the mane are care- 
fully executed. Two rows of flame-like locks, symmetrically arranged, rise 


Estes 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


from the forehead above a round fillet which runs from ear to ear. Similar 
locks surround the face, and cover the back and sides of the head, laid flatly 
in parallel rows. Three locks are indicated at the juncture of foreleg and 
shoulder, and a row of locks — resembling a guilloche pattern — is carved 
along the haunch. The tail ends in a tuft confined by two rings, which, 
like the fillet on the forehead, are purely ornamental. 

It is difficult to determine closely the date within the sixth century to 
which the work should be assigned, though Schréder’s opinion that it is 
a good example of early archaic sculpture seems preferable to that of Per- 
drizet and Lechat, who see in it only a late, lifeless repetition of an archaic 
type. The lion had become extinct in Greece proper before the sixth cen- 
tury, and representations of him in classical Greek art are for the most part 
less successful than those of the horse (cf. no. 12), the dog, and the ram 
(cf. no. 39), and distinctly less true to nature than the Mycenaean render- 
ings of lions. In the present case the forms may have been imitated from 
the representation of the animal in Ionian Greek art, perhaps even from 
the designs on vases of the orientalising style. A fragmentary statue of a 
lion in marble, from an archaic Athenian grave monument found built into 
the Themistoclean wall, is of the same conventionalised type (Ath. Mitt. 
XXXII, 1907, p. 542, pl. xxrv, 2). In comparison with them the statue of 
a recumbent lioness which surmounted the tomb of Menekrates at Corfu 
(Collignon, op. cit., p. 90, fig. 58) shows less decorative detail, but more 
truth to nature. The closest parallels are afforded by two recumbent lions 
‘in Ny Carlsberg (Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Billedtavler I, 5, 6; Brunn- 
Bruckmann-Arndt, Denkmédiler, text, figs. 4-11). They were found in the 
same neighborhood; their material is the same Corinthian limestone; and 
the resemblances in style are so close as to suggest that they are products 
of the same workshop, though the modelling of the bodies is more clumsy, 
and the locks of the manes are carved with less care and detail. 


[18 ] 


ARCHAIC PERIOD 


11. GRAVE STELE OF A YOUTH 


Pentelic marble. 

Preserved in five fragments: A, 0.513 m. high, broken at top and bottom, includes the lower part 
of the crowning member, the head of the youth and his left forearm. The nose and chin are 
injured. B, 0.202 m. high, 0.122 m. wide, broken except at the right edge: the right hand. C, 
0.585 m. high, broken at top and bottom: the body from the waist to the knee, with the ary- 
ballos, most of the surface of which is broken off. D, 0.09 m. high, 0.093 m. wide, broken 
except at left edge: the right ankle. E, 0.068 m. high, 0.043 m. wide, broken except at the 
top: from the top of the crowning member. 

From Thebes. 

Gift of Fiske Warren, 1908. 

Inv. 08.288. Ann. Rep. 1908, p. 59. Caskey, A.J.A. XV, 1911, pp. 293 ff., pl. vir. Reinach, Ré- 
pertoire des reliefs, II, p. 199. Picard, La sculpture antique, p. 281, fig. 73. 

The five fragments comprise somewhat less than half of a grave stele of 
the tall, slender form prevalent in the sixth century, B.c. Most of the sur- 
face was taken up by the representation of the person commemorated, 
carved life-size in moderately low relief upon a background of varying 
depth. The nude figure of a young man stands in profile to the right, with 
his left leg advanced. With his extended right hand he holds a strap from 
which hangs an aryballos. His left hand is raised to the level of his head, 
holding up a stem with two pomegranates. He is crowned with a wreath, 
perhaps of olive leaves, which, with the aryballos, serves to characterise 
him as an athlete. The pomegranates probably had a funerary signifi- 
cance, since that fruit was associated in Greek religion with the chthonian 
divinities. 

The head is held erect, and, though somewhat clumsily executed, is not 
lacking in animation and individuality. The forehead is rounded, the nose 
long and protruding, the chin small but prominent. The eye is large, wide 
open, and shown in front view, with lids formed as narrow ridges. The 
flat eyeball is not sunk, but simply marked off from the lids by an incised 
line. On it the outline of the iris and the pupil is engraved, while a deeper 
groove makes the line of the brow. The ear, placed vertically and too 
high, has a large, flat lobe. Except for a row of spiral curls from the front 
of the head to the ear, the hair is treated as a smooth mass covering a skull 
somewhat angular in outline and narrow from front to back. The hair was 
worn long, and presumably confined near the end by a band wound around 
it, as on the head of a youth with a discus (Dre attischen Grabreliefs I, no. 


[19 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 





5, pl. 1v) and on the stele of a youth with a spear from the Themistoclean 
wall at Athens (Ath. Mitt. XXXII, 1907, pp. 514 ff., pl. xx1). 

The fragments B and C are nearly contiguous. On the former, the out- 
line of the abdomen, with indication of the navel, appears below the hand. 
The youth has a tapering waist and very large, muscular thighs. 


[20 ] 


ARCHAIC PERIOD 


The aryballos, which is the common globular shape, is elaborately 
decorated in low relief with a tongue pattern on the shoulder, a chain of 
lotus flowers and buds around the body, and crescents radiating from the 
bottom. 

Above the head of the youth the background curves forward, and is con- 
tinued by a flat surface, on which are the remains of an inscription running 
vertically upwards, giving his name. The first two letters, ®O are 0.047 m. 
in diameter. At the broken edge of the stone is the lower half of a vertical 
stroke of the third letter. Evidence as to the treatment of the upper edge 
of the crowning member is furnished by the small fragment, E. An incised 
line runs horizontally 0.018 m. from the top. Below this are traces of a 
large spiral incised in the roughened surface. The top of the stele is 
probably to be restored as shown in the accompanying drawing which 
attempts to give an idea of the complete monument. The height of the 
shaft has here been estimated as about 2.34 m., the height of the figure as 
1.57m. The width is 0.355 m. at the level of the top of the head, and 
0.398 m. at the thighs, indicating a fairly pronounced diminution. 

The material, the form of the crowning member, and the sculptural 
style show that the stele, like most of the early grave monuments found 
in Boeotia, is to be assigned to an Attic artist (cf. no. 12, and the remarks 
in A.J. A.l.c., p.298). The tops of most Attic reliefs of this type are lack- 
ing, and it has been supposed that they were surmounted by a palmette, 
such as appears on similar monuments from Ionia and other parts of 
Greece. But an analogous treatment of the top of the shaft is illustrated by 
the fragment of a stele discovered in the Themistoclean wall (Ath. Mutt. 
XXXII, 1907, p. 541; cf. A. J. A. 1. c. p. 297, fig. 4), as well as by an Attic 
stele in New York (Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum, VIII, 1918, p. 
94). The latter, which is the largest and most elaborate monument of its 
kind, had an additional flat member with its sides rounded to match the 
design of scrolls and palmettes painted on it, and, above this, a seated lion 
or sphinx carved in the round. In the other two cases there seems to have 
been nothing above the plain, horizontal top of the shaft. On the forms of 
archaic Attic stelae cf. also Dinsmoor, A. J. A. XXVI, 1922, p. 276, fig. 11. 

Numerous details of style and technique show that the relief is the work 
of a sculptor of the early Attic school who had been little influenced by the 


21s] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


Ionian artists brought to Athens by Peisistratos. The face has a lively 
character comparable with that of the youth with the discus, and in strong 
contrast to the inert and sleepy look of the warrior on the stele of Aristion. 
The eye and the ear have the early Attic forms; the emphatic rendering of 
the bony structure is an Attic trait; and the use of engraved lines for details 
is a characteristic taken over from the technique of the earlier decorative 
sculptures in soft limestone. The date of the stele probably falls in the 
third quarter of the sixth century. 


12. RELIEF oF A HORSEMAN 


Pentelic marble. Height, 0.81 m.; width, 0.815 m. 

Incomplete at the left side and at the bottom. The preserved portion is broken in two horizontally 
across the horse’s head and the rider’s waist; the joint is filled with plaster. Missing, the 
surface of the rider’s helmet and most of his face, his right arm from above the elbow and his 
right foot; also the head, legs and tail of the horse. Large fragments are chipped from the 
neck and shoulder of the horse, and from the crowning moulding. Aside from these breaks and 
some minor injuries, the surface is in very fresh condition. No remains of color are discernible. 

From the vicinity of Thebes. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1899. 

Inv. 99.339. Ann. Rep. 1899, p. 22, no. 2. Norton, J.H.S. XXXIV, 1914, p. 70, fig. 1. Chase, 
Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 28, fig. 30. 


The figures are carved in high relief upon an uneven background which 
curves forward at the top, and is crowned by a simple moulding. The 
average thickness of the slab is 0.20 m., that of the background at the 
right edge, 0.10 m. The top and the edge are carefully smoothed. 

The horse is represented pacing slowly to the right, with left fore and 
hind legs advanced. The front of his body is turned slightly; his neck, 
drawn back and strongly arched, is bent farther towards the spectator; 
and his head was shown almost in direct front view, not pressed in against 
the neck, as sometimes happens in archaic reliefs, but lifted high and pro- 
jected boldly out of the normal front plane of the slab. This is proved by 
the traces of the reins, which, except for the end below the rider’s left hand, 
were made of bronze. The end of one rein fitted into a hole in the top of 
the hand, and ran obliquely upward in a groove carved in the horse’s 
mane, while the other was fastened into a hole in the background to the 
left of the jaw. Deep creases are carved at either side of the horse’s elbow 
joint, and shallower lines are incised at the junction of the back with the 
neck and of the neck with the jaw. Veins are prominently indicated on the 


[22 ] 


ARCHAIC PERIOD 


belly. The mane is cropped short, its surface is smooth, the details being 
left to be rendered by paint. 

The rider sits firmly and easily, his right shoulder and arm drawn back, 
his right hand resting on his hip, and possibly grasping a bronze spear, of 
which, however, no traces remain; his left hand holds the reins. He is 





bearded, and wears an Attic helmet with high crest and long plume, a short 
chiton, a chlamys, greaves, and a sword hanging in its scabbard at his left 
side. The chiton. has rudimentary sleeves reaching just below the arm- 
pits; a portion of it is pulled up from under the belt, and falls over it in a 
short kolpos; except for this, no folds are indicated plastically on the gar- 
ment. The chlamys is fastened over the right shoulder; one end floats out 
behind, with its edge laid in zigzag folds; the other end falls over the rider’s 


[23 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


thigh upon the body of the horse, its edges being overlapped and arranged 
in zigzag folds lightly chiselled on the surface; the whole garment. is 
covered by a conventional system of incised lines. 

The relief is probably a grave monument representing the deceased in 
armor and on horseback in token of his rank as a knight. Similar figures 
occur on a number of Athenian grave monuments of the archaic period, 
though they are usually placed in a subordinate position. Compare the 
horseman on the base from Lamptrae (Conze, Die attischen Grabreliefs, I, 
pl. x1) and the riders carved in relief, or painted, on the lower registers of 
several stelae (zbid. pls. 1, rx, 1 and 2, x, la and 2). The only known examples 
from Attica in which this type was used for the monument proper is the 
fragmentary statue of a horseman from a cemetery at Vari (Collignon, Les 
statues funérazres dans Vart grec, p. 64, fig. 34). In Boeotia, a long series of 
reliefs of horsemen have been found, dating from the second half of the fifth 
century downward. But these belong to a different category, as is shown 
by the accompanying figures of worshippers and by the inscriptions: they 
are votive reliefs to ancestors raised to the rank of heroes (cf. Roscher, 
Lexikon der Mythologie s. v. Heros, I, 2, pp. 2554 ff., especially pp. 2583 ff.). 

Material, style, and technique show that this monument, like no. 11, 
is to be assigned to the Attic school. The horse is a translation into relief 
of a type illustrated by several statues of horses found among the pre- 
Persian remains on the Acropolis. It resembles most closely the two latest 
and finest examples of the group (Dickins, Catalogue of the Acropolis 
Museum, I, nos. 697 and 700; Schrader, Auswahl archaischer Marmor- 
skulpturen um Akropolis Museum, pls. xv, xv1). The second of these, 
though slenderer, is of the same long-bodied type. The head of no. 697 is 
turned and lifted like that of the horse on the relief, and the chest is of the 
same heavy build. The indication of veins is unusual before 480 B.c.; they 
are shown, however, on the head of a horse from the west pediment of the 
temple at Delphi (Foutlles de Delphes, IV, pl. xxxv), on fragments of 
horses from the pediment of the temple of Apollo at Eretria, and on a 
horse’s head in relief on the Acropolis (Dickins, no. 1340, p. 274). A further 
point of contact with the Acropolis sculptures is furnished by the carving 
of the folds of the rider’s chlamys, which resembles the drapery of the 
standing youth (Dickins, no. 633; Schrader, pls. x11, x11), and still more 


[ 24 ] 


ARCHAIC PERIOD 


clearly that of the seated scribe (Dickins, no. 629; Schrader, p. 47, fig. 52). 
Above all, the surfaces of the relief, especially those of the horse’s body, 
show the delicate modelling and perfect finish, which were the chief con- 
tribution of the Ionian artists to Attic sculpture in marble. 


13. Tor or A GRAVE STELE 


Greyish-white marble with large crystals. Height, 1.31 m. 


The lower part of the shaft is missing. The height of the 
akroterion is 0.62 m.; the width of the shaft at the top, 
0.408 m., at the bottom of the fragment, 0.42 m.; its 
thickness is 0.09 m. 


Found near the “‘ Tomb of Aias”’ in the Troad. Formerly 
in the collection of Mr. Frank Calvert. 


Francis Bartlett Collection, 1903. 


Inv. 03.753. Ann. Rep. 1903, p. 56, no. 1. Korte, Ath. Mitt. 
XX, 1895, p. 3. Furtwiangler, Aegina, das Heiligtum der 
Aphaia, p. 357, fig. 283. 


The fragment includes the upper part of 
a tall, slender stele and the richly carved 
anthemion which surmounted it. The shaft 
tapers slightly. It is framed in above by a 
flat band on which are traces of a painted 
egg-and-dart pattern, and at the sides by 
narrow, round fillets, left smooth except at 
the top where they are treated as an astrag- 
alos moulding. The surface of the shaft is 
finely smoothed, and may possibly have 
borne a painted figure, though the absence 
of any traces of paint here militates against 
such a theory. 

The crowning member is decorated with 
a design in low relief, consisting of two sym- 
metrical pairs of volutes, placed one above 
the other, and surmounted by a palmette of 
seven large leaves with rounded ends, between which the tips of narrow, 
pointed leaves appear. Both pairs of volutes are connected by horizontal 


[25 ] 





GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


cross-pieces, and the space in the centre is filled by a conventionalised 
lotus flower. The lower volutes terminate at the bottom in small, concave 
discs with raised centres, and the outer angles of both pairs are filled with 
small palmettes. 

The elements of the design, which were taken over by the Ionian 
Greeks from oriental art, are treated in a purely schematic style, revealing 
only slight traces of their original derivation from forms of plant life. And 
the naturalising tendency which began to manifest itself in this type of 
ornament towards the close of the archaic period, and which led eventually 
to such works as the Attic anthemion, no. 45, and the relief from Ceglie, 
no. 49, is not yet apparent. The palmette is at an earlier stage than that 
of a stele of the late sixth century found at Samos (Boehlau, Aus ionischen 
Nekropolen, pl. 1, 1; cf. Furtwiingler, 1. c.), and separated by a much 
greater interval from the palmettes at the angles of the three-sided relief, 
no. 17. A fragmentary stele from Dorylaion (Korte, 1. c., pls. 1, 11) furnishes 
the closest analogy, though it is of more archaic style. Its shaft has astrag- 
alos mouldings along the edges, and its anthemion was apparently of 
similar design. The present monument is to be assigned to an Ionian artist 
of the second half of the sixth century. 


14. FRAGMENTARY STATUE OF A Boy 


Greek marble, probably Pentelic. Height, 0.58 m. 

Missing, the head, the arms, and the legs from the knees down. A piece has been chipped from the 
back below the right shoulder-blade, and there are other small bruises made by blows of a pick. 
Parts of the surface, especially the fronts of the legs, are slightly incrusted. The arms were 
broken off in antiquity, and refastened by means of iron clamps and dowels. On the side of 
the right leg, extending upward 0.065 m. from the break, are the remains of a support. A small 
bit of marble projecting from the side of the left hip is from a support for the left arm. 

Bought in Rome. 

Francis Bartlett Fund, 1922. 

Inv. 22.593. 


The nude figure of a boy, from twelve to fourteen years of age, stands 
with his weight supported more on the right leg than on the left, which is 
advanced. As a result the left hip and right shoulder are slightly lowered, 
and there is a variation in the rendering of the glutei, but the modelling of 
the torso is little affected. The shoulders are broad, and thrown well back. 
In the side view the body appears unduly slender, and it has a very taper- 


[ 26 ] 


FIFTH CENTURY B.C. 


ing waist. The right arm apparently hung at the side; the left was drawn 
back, and bent at the elbow, as is proved by the remains on the hip of a 
support for the forearm. 

The closest analogy is afforded by the well-known statue in the style 
of Kritios, found on the Athenian Acropolis and dated shortly before 





480 n.c. (Dickins, Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum, I, p. 264, no. 698). 
This represents a boy of about the same age in a similar pose, save that the 
weight is on the left leg, and both arms hung at the sides. The present 
fragment illustrates a slightly more advanced stage in the development of 
the standing nude type. On the other hand, it is a predecessor of the statue 
of Apollo from the theatre at Athens, and therefore probably to be dated 


[27 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


between 480 and 460 B.c. Compared with the Kritios boy the figure is less 
fleshy, with less depth of chest and abdomen, squarer shoulders and broader 
hips. The pectorals and the abdominal and hip muscles are clearly shown, 





but not accentuated as in Polykleitan works. Close observation of nature 
is apparent in the rendering of the bony structure of the shoulder-joints, 
the hips and the knees, and in the modelling of the legs. 

Nothing in the composition as a whole nor in the treatment of ana- 
tomical details recalls the style of the eclectic school of Pasiteles or of the 
ordinary Graeco-Roman copyist. The traces of a support beside the right 
leg might be used as an argument that the fragment is a copy of a Greek 
statue. But it is not certain that the support was the conventional tree- 


[ 28 ] 





FIFTH CENTURY B.C. 


trunk. And the surface, where it is well preserved as on the back of the 
legs, reveals a quality of execution not unworthy of comparison with that 
of the boy from the Acropolis. The work is therefore classed here as an 
original of the transitional period, and probably of the Attic school. 


15. FRAGMENT oF A YOUTHFUL MALE HEAD 


Greek marble, fully crystalline. Height, 0.122 m.; width, 0.185 m. 

The fragment includes the front of the skull, the forehead, and the left eye. The head was broken 
and restored in antiquity. The back is a vertical plane carefully worked as a contact surface. 
The preserved fragment was fastened upon the lower part of the face by means of a dowel, as 
is shown by a cutting, 0.008 m. wide, extending 0.06 m. upward from the break, and 0.05 m. 
inward from the back plane. The dowel was held by a pin inserted in a channel drilled from 
the right side of the head. The hair over the centre of the forehead has been worked down, 
and the surface left rough, perhaps to hold a restoration in stucco. 

From Athens. 

Anonymous gift, 1918. 

Inv. 18.426. Ann. Rep. 1918, p. 86. 


The fragment is from a life-size statue, probably representing a youth- 
ful god — Apollo or Hermes. The head is encircled by a narrow fillet. 





The hair is carved in wavy strands radiating from the crown, and ending, 
above the low forehead, in a double row of spiral curls. The eye has heavy 
lids, the upper one strongly arched, the lower nearly horizontal. 

Original Greek work of 480-460 B.c. 


[29 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


16. Hanp HoLpInc ALABASTRON, FRAGMENT OF A RELIEF 


Coarse-grained Greek marble. Length, 0.16 m. 

The background has been cut away. The hand is broken off at the wrist, and the top of the ala- 
bastron is missing. The little finger is damaged. 

From Rome. 

Purchased from the James Fund and by special contribution, 1910. 

Inv. 10.159. Ann. Rep. 1910, p. 59. A.J.A. XXII, 1918, p. 133, fig. 11. 


| 
} 
| 








A woman’s left hand holding an alabastron of tubular shape; life-size, 
and executed in low relief. | 

The type of the fingers, which are long, tapering and curled up slightly 
at the tips, and the modelling of the palm suggest that the fragment is to 
be dated in the second quarter of the fifth century B.c. It is apparently 
from a grave relief. 


17. THREE-SIDED RELIEF, A COMPANION PIECE TO THE “ LUDOVISI 
THRONE” IN THE MUSEO DELLE TERME, ROME 


The material is the same as that of the Ludovisi relief — Greek island marble, pure white, of 
thoroughly crystalline structure, and with moderately large crystals. It shows similar flaws and 
the same light, greyish-brown patina. Portions of the surface have been carefully cleaned; 
but some incrustation remains, especially on the garment of the figure on the left wing; and 
marks left by the roots of plants are visible in places. 

Missing, the three akroteria, the beam of the balance with the upper parts of the conical pieces on 
which the small figures were carved. The central akroterion was set in a cutting in the back- 
ground above the head of the winged boy. This cutting is 0.325 m. long, 0.08 m. wide, and 


[ 30 ] 








GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


0.05 m. deep at the apex. In its centre is a dowel hole 0.025m. long, 0.02m. wide, 0.015m. deep. 
The akroteria at the angles, like those on the Ludovisi relief, had no prepared beds, but were 
secured by cylindrical dowels, as is shown by small holes, about 0.013 m. in diameter, and 0.03 
m. deep, situated near the corners. The scale-beam was made of a separate piece of marble, 
and held in place by means of three tenons which were fitted into cuttings in the relief. 

The reliefs themselves have suffered comparatively slight injuries. On the left wing the lower 
termination of the scroll, which in this case projected beyond the end of the slab, is lost, together 
with the ends of the old woman’s feet. The edges of the palmettes at the corners are broken 





off, and there are small breaks along the lower edges at the three sides, especially at the angles. 
The noses of all five figures, the toes of the winged boy, the plectrum of the lyre player and the 
pegs of the lyre are damaged. 

Certain other disfigurements were produced, partly by accident partly by design, in Roman times, 
when the relief was removed from its original position. As on the counterpart, marks made by 
crowbars, used to pry the monument from its pedestal, are visible at several places along the 
bottom, both on the outer and inner faces. On the left wing an irregular groove runs across the 
bottom surface close to the corner, and continues obliquely upward across the face of the relief. 
According to the convincing explanation of Marshall (in Studniczka, Jahrbuch, l.c., p. 53) this 
groove was caused by the slipping of a grappling iron used in hoisting the block. On the same 
wing an object held in the hands of the old woman and continuing downward in front of her 
legs, where it projected beyond the edge of the slab, has been chiselled off, probably at the 
time of the second use to make an injury less conspicuous. A cutting in the end surface of the 


[ 32 ] 





THE J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM 
LIBRARY 


FIFTH CENTURY B.C. 


left wing, situated 0.31 m. from the bottom and measuring 0.05 m. by 0.03 m., is also probably 
to be assigned to the time of the Roman repairs, since its workmanship is inferior to that of 
the other holes described. 

From Rome. Found, according to rumor, in the same region as the Ludovisi relief. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1908. 

Inv. 08.205. Ann. Rep. 1909, p. 55. Fairbanks, M.F.A. Bulletin, VIII, 1910, p. 17. Marshall, 
Burlington Magazine, XVII, July 1910, pp. 247 ff., with further comment by the same and by 
Fothergill, p. 232. Reinach, Rev. arch. XVI, 1910, pp. 338 ff. A.J. A. XIV, 1911, pp. 149 ff. 





De Mot, Rev. arch. XVII, 1911, pp. 149 ff. Marshall, zbed., pp. 151, 152. Petersen, Vom Alten 
Rom 4 (1911), pp. 142 ff. Studniczka, Jahrbuch XXVI, 1911, pp. 50-192, pl. 1, 90 figs. Antike 
Denkmdiler, III, 1911, pp. 101 ff., with comment by Studniczka. Kjellberg, Ausonia, VI, 1911, 
pp. 101 ff. Reinach, Gazette des beauz arts, 1912, VII, pp. 65 ff. Répertoire des reliefs, I, p. 200. 
De Ridder, Revue des études grecques, XXV, 1912, pp. 369 ff. Lechat, Revue des études an- 
ciennes, XIV, 1912, pp. 117 ff. Amelung, in Helbig, Fwhrer,® II, pp. 75 ff. The same in Der 
Moderne Cicerone,? Rom I, 2, pp. 288-294. Eisler, Mtinchner J ahrbuch fiir bildende Kunst, 1912, 
pp. 78 ff. E. A. Gardner, J. H. S. XXXIII, 1918, pp. 73 ff., pls. 11-v1; p. 360. Norton, ibid., 
XXXIV, 1914, pp. 66 ff. M. F. A. Catalogue of Casts, Part III, Greek and Roman Sculpture, 
Supplement, 1914, no. 88B. Springer-Michaelis-Wolters, Die Kunst des Altertums,  p. 228, 
fig. 427. Waldmann, Griechische Originale, pls. 75-77. J. Six, Jahrbuch XXX, 1915, pp. 74-95 
passim. Klein, ibid., XX XI, 1916, pp. 231 ff. Elderkin, Art in America, V, 1916, 17, pp. 276 ff. 
Caskey, A. J. A. XXII, 1918, pp. 101 ff., pls. Iv, v. DeRidder, Revue des études grecques 


[33 J 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


XXXITTI, 1920, p. 327. Richter, J. H. S. XL, 1920, pp. 113 ff., pl.v. Casson, ibid., pp. 137 ff. 
Svoronos, Journ. intern. d’arch. num. XX, 1920-21, pp. 108-159, pls. m1, 1v. Hawes, A.J. A. 
XXVI, 1922, pp. 278 ff., pls. u-1v. Ashmole, J. H..S. XLII, 1922, pp. 248 ff., pl. x1. Powers, 
The Art Bulletin, V, 1923, pp. 102 ff. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 44, fig. 47. Picard, 


La sculpture antique, p. 352. 

This monument corresponds so closely with the ‘‘ Ludovisi Throne” in 
material, shape and dimensions, as well as in the subjects and style of the 
reliefs, that some original connection between the two must be assumed: 
either they were both designed as parts of some larger structure, or one was 
made as a companion-piece to the other, and to serve a similar use. The 
two works help to explain one another. In the description which follows, 


Cie te 
2 





therefore, constant reference will be made to the better known relief in 
Rome. The discussion falls naturally into three parts — (1) the form and 


possible use of the monuments, (2) the subjects represented by the reliefs, 
(3) their style and date. 


1. The Form and Use of the Monuments 


The monument in Boston is carved from a single block of marble, hol- 
lowed out in such a way as to form a front with a gable-shaped top, and 
two shorter wings set at right angles to it, with their upper edges continu- 
ing approximately the slope of the gable. The left wing is now consider- 
ably narrower than the right; and this was also originally the case, except 
at the bottom where it may have corresponded in width with the other 


[34 ] 








FIFTH CENTURY B.C. 


wing. The outer faces of the front and wings are decorated with sculpture 
in moderately low relief. The top, bottom, and end surfaces are smoothed; 
the inner faces are roughly tooled. This general description applies equally 
well to the monument in Rome, except that in the latter both wings are of 
the same width. But the two marbles differ slightly in all their dimensions, 
as may be seen in the following table: — 


Boston Rome Variation 
Width of front at bottom, outside ............. 161m. 142m. +0.19 m. 
ne t.LON, OULSIUG* <0 os on See ee 1.42 1.33 +0.09 
ecw =) bottoms side: Anau wae ees 1.14 1.09 +0.05 
mS 2. LOD. INSIDC 2.80. comeine esx calcu oe 1.085 1.10 —0.015 
“« © right wing at bottom, outside ......... 0.73 0.705 +0.025 
= © left wing at bottom, outside ........... 0.55 0.705 —0.155 
Height of front at mght corner ...............:. 0.82 0.86 —0.04 
ee | «6S. left sf ed Ee OAR ee ae 0.82 0.835 —0.015 
Saas CONG” 2 ae ale ee ees 0.96 1.03* —0.07 
Thickness of front and sides at bottom ......... 0.23 0.175 +0.055 
: So OER fo) ePioke he eye atten airy ot aie 0.165 0.12 +0.045 
“s Beriehte wine AL tOD fea. yous toe eee 0.155 0.115 +0.04 
. Splel tewiN@eAl LOD. Ws... % lean stds 2-0. 0.165 0.115 +0.05 
Prvemavenciont OUrellel 4. > 5 .u. 2 ss eee so 0.08 0.06 +0.02 


* Estimated. 


The most important of these discrepancies in dimensions may also be 
clearly seen in the accompanying diagram, in which the outlines of the two 
fronts are drawn at the same scale. On both monuments the spaces occu- 
pied by the relief figures are bounded below by curved lines, beginning 
near the centre of the front and at the ends of the wings, and rising towards 
the two corners. On the monument in Boston the parts thus cut off at the 
bottom are filled with ornaments carved in low relief in the form of Ionic 
scrolls with volutes at each end, the larger volutes meeting at the angles 
and supporting a flaring double palmette. The corners of the companion 
piece in Rome evidently once had similar ornaments; they were, however, 
made separately, and have not survived. As may be seen in the drawing, the 
curving ground coincides almost perfectly on both reliefs. It is thus pos- 
sible to restore the monument in Rome, as Studniczka has done (Jahrbuch, 
l.c., p. 77, fig. 17), with angle ornaments of exactly the dimensions and 


[ 35 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


design of those on the companion-piece, except for the small volutes at the 
inner terminations of the scrolls. And the addition of these ornaments 
makes the two fronts of equal width at the bottom. The relation of these 
ornaments to the reliefs and of the figures to their backgrounds has been 
clearly stated by Fothergill, as follows: ‘The volutes and palmettes alone 
have any architectonic significance, and these are only ornaments on the 
top of some structure below. The shape of the mass of the marbles is pre- 
scribed by a line drawn over the outermost projections of the figures. The 
side representing the old woman is smaller than the other three because she 
is in a huddled up position, and the gabled form of the fronts is the inevi- 
table result of an ordinary pyramidal grouping of the figures. The back- 
ground therefore is ‘ideal space,’ and for many reasons (its low pitch, its 
having had no cornice, its odd shape, and odder relation to the akroteria 
below) cannot be thought of as architectonic structure.” This statement 
fails only to account for the akroteria on the apex and outer angles of each 
gable, for the existence of which there is clear evidence. The cutting for 
the central akroterion on the monument in Boston shows that it was of 
considerable size and certainly of marble. Those at the angles of both 
monuments were supported only by thin cylindrical dowels. Studniczka 
restores them in the form of doves with spread wings (I. c., p. 76, figs. 
16, 17). To modern taste, however, all three ornaments, whatever their 
forms may have been, seem superfluous and disturbing. 

The foregoing analysis of the forms of the monuments makes it unneces- 
sary to discuss at length some of the theories which have been advanced in 
regard to the purpose for which they were made and their relation to one 
another. They cannot have formed a parapet about an opening in a pave- 
ment, nor a sarcophagus. Nor do the slabs with their reliefs suggest the 
structural forms of the back and arms of a throne, or of the ends of a 
couch. Both the forms and the decoration are more satisfactorily ac- 
counted for by the theory, first proposed by Puchstein, and accepted by 
Marshall and Studniczka, that the monuments were ornaments set on the 
narrow ends of a long, rectangular altar. The evidence in favor of this 
theory and the arguments which have been raised against it are summarised 
in A.J. A. XXII, 1918, pp. 107 ff. 


[ 36 ] 


FIFTH CENTURY B.C. 


2. The Subjects Represented 
It is evident that the groups of three figures on the fronts of the two 
monuments and the seated figures on the wings have reference to some re- 
ligious cult; but opinions differ as to whether they should be explained as 





human beings with a symbolical significance, or as actors in one or another 
of the Greek myths. 

On the front of the monument in Rome the centre figure is shown with 
her body in front view and her head in profile looking up to the left. Her 
arms are raised, and her hands rest on the shoulders of the two attendants 
who bend over her, each grasping her under the arm-pits with one hand, 





while with the other they hold up one end of a cloth (probably the end of 
her long, ungirt Ionic dress), which conceals the lower part of her form. 
Her legs are cut off at mid-thigh by the fillet at the bottom of the slab. 
The attendants stand on a shelving ground with pebbles indicated on it. 
Those who hold that the figures are mortal see in this central figure a 


[37 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


woman in the act of child-birth (Robert, in Preller, Griech. Myth. I, 514, 
1; Wolters, Ed. “Apx. 1892, p. 227; Marshall, l. c.). 

On the front of the relief in Boston a nude boy with large wings spread 
out against the background stands in the centre in full front view. He 
holds up before him a large balance, the original appearance of which is 
suggested in the accompanying photograph of a cast showing the missing 





beam as restored by Studniczka. A cast of the relief, with the balance re- 
stored, is exhibited in the Court of Classical Casts. The three large holes 
cut into the face of the relief to receive the ends of tenons prove that the 
beam was of marble, not, as has been suggested, of bronze. The scale pans 
are preserved, attached to the legs of the lateral figures. In each is a small, 
nude figure of a youth carved in very low relief. The one in the left-hand 
scale, which hangs lower than the other, is shown in front view, the one to 


[ 38 ] 





FIFTH CENTURY B.C. 


the right in side view, with dangling legs. On either side is a female figure 
seated on a double cushion, resting an elbow on the palmette at the angle, 
and a foot on the small inner volute of the scroll. Each wears an Ionic 
chiton, a sakkos, sandals and an himation drawn up over the head. The 
one at the left is manifestly pleased at the result of the weighing; she 
smiles and raises her left hand with an animated gesture. The one at the 





right bows her head in grief. According to Marshall these figures are ‘‘mor- 
tal women, and the action is symbolic of what to a Greek mind was the 
destiny of woman. . . . Eros, the great primeval divinity is weighing out 
to the two wives the assurance of lineage . . . the continuance of the 
family in male line by a grown-up son.” 

The mythological interpretations of the Ludovisi relief, with two excep- 
tions, are based on the assumption that the central figure is not kneeling, 


[ 39 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


but rising into the light of day with the aid of the two attendants. The 
goddess is variously identified as Aphrodite rising out of the sea, as a foun- 
tain nymph, as Pandora, Kore or Ge rising out of the earth, as Hera emerg- 
ing from the spring Kanathos, in which she bathes yearly, renewing her 
virginity, or as Persephone, also rising from a mystic bath which was fol- 
lowed by a ceremonial robing. Klein, Geschichte der griech. Kunst, I, p. 394, 





explains the scene as a representation of Leto giving birth to Apollo and 
Artemis on the island of Delos. And Mrs. Hawes, A. J. A., l. c., sees in the 
central figure the great earth-goddess — either Ge giving birth to Erich- 
thonios, or Eilithyia to Eros, or Semele to Dionysos. 

The scene on the front of the relief in Boston recalls the “‘ psychostasia,”’ 
or weighing of souls, described in Homer, represented in a lost tragedy of 
Aeschylus, and illustrated on several Attic red-figured vases. On the latter 


[40 ] 


ee ee ee eT eee 


_ 


pees CE A tea 


se 





FIFTH CENTURY B.C. 


Hermes is shown weighing the souls of Achilles and Memnon in the pres- 
ence of their mothers, Thetis and Eos. But the smiling, winged boy on the 
relief cannot be Hermes or Thanatos, as has been suggested. He is unmis- 
takably Eros. Studniczka has therefore proposed that the scene represents 
the decision of the fate of Adonis. In the smiling goddess, seated next to 
the heavier scale, he recognises the victorious Aphrodite, while the figure 





at the right is Persephone, mourning the loss of Adonis. The pomegranate 
carved in low relief in the lower right-hand corner of the monument is a 
symbol appropriate to the goddess of the lower world, while the fish in the 
opposite corner may refer to the sea-born goddess. A somewhat different 
interpretation is proposed by Eisler, who sees in the scene a more definite 
reference to the astronomical significance of the Phoenician myth of 
Adonis. According to him the balance represents the zodiacal constella- 


[41] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


tion Libra, which announced the approach of the autumnal equinox. The 
two figures in the scales symbolise on the one hand Adonis sinking into the 
lower world at the coming of winter, on the other his rising in the spring. 
And the two seated figures represent a duplication of Aphrodite, mourning 
on the one side the departure of Adonis, and on the other rejoicing in his 
return. Mrs. Hawes identifies the two seated figures as Demeter and 
Persephone, but denies them any special interest in the action of Eros, who 
is weighing the lots of men. Finally, Ashmole regards the figures in the 
scales as representing the morning and evening star: ‘‘One star rises from 
behind the land horizon (the underworld, indicated by the pomegranate) 
and looks back to Persephone whom he leaves mourning or sleeping; while 
his brother sinks into the ocean (suggested by its denizen the fish) to the 
joyful or awakening Aphrodite.”’ 

The seated figures on the wings have almost universally been inter- 
preted as typical worshippers of the divinity to whom the monuments were 
dedicated. The nude girl playing the flutes and the heavily draped woman 
burning incense on the wings of the relief in Rome are best explained as 
typifying two aspects of the cult of Aphrodite. One is a hierodoulos, or 
temple-courtesan, the other a married woman. The corresponding figures 
on the Boston relief are also strongly contrasted. On the right wing is a 
boy, nude save for sandals, seated on a cushion playing the lyre. The other 
is an old woman, bare-foot, clad in a sleeveless Doric chiton, seated on the 
ground with her legs drawn up, and grasping an object which has been 
chiselled off, and can no longer be identified. It extended above her right 
hand almost to the upper margin; its lower portion extended beyond the 
edge of the slab. Its traces are shown in the accompanying drawings in 
which a restoration of the missing left hand is also suggested (cf. A. J. A. 
XXIT, 1918, p. 115). The woman has short hair, and the ravages of age are 
seen in the wrinkles on her face and hand, in her profile with its hooked 
nose, its lips suggesting toothless gums, its sagging chin, and in the way in 
which the bones of her shoulder show through the wasted flesh. She has 
been called a grandmother, a nurse, an aged hierodoulos, a temple minis- 
trant. 

Studniczka is alone in regarding the four figures on the wings as myth- 
ological personages. According to him the incense burner and the flute 


[ 42 ] 


FIFTH CENTURY B.C. 


player are both representations of Aphrodite, the lyre-playing boy is 
Adonis, and the old woman is the nurse of Myrrha, the mother of Adonis, 
tending the myrrh-tree into which the nymph was transformed. 

The symbols carved at the lower right-hand corner of the relief have 
been explained by all commentators as pomegranates. The fishes in the 
left-hand corner are called mullets by Marshall. Studniczka distinguishes 
two varieties of fish, that on the side being a red mullet (mullus surmu- 
letus), that on the front a grey mullet (mugil cephalus). 

Various attempts have been made to identify the sanctuary in which the 
reliefs were originally erected. Petersen suggested that this was the temple 





of Aphrodite on Mount Eryx, and that the monuments were brought to 
Rome in 181 B.c. to adorn the temple of Venus Erycina. A sanctuary at 
Amathus in Cyprus, in which Adonis was worshipped with Aphrodite, is 
proposed by Studniczka; a shrine of Persephone, at Locri, by Ashmole. 
According to Mrs. Hawes the two reliefs ‘“‘formed the ends and adjoining 
side pieces of a couch-altar made between 479 and 471 B.c. for the sanc- 
tuary of the Lycomids at Phlya in Attica, which had been burned by the 


1 Cf. Jahrbuch, l. c., figs. 65, 67, for a restoration of the tree. Mrs. Hawes, restores a drinking 
horn (symbol of fertility) in the hand of the old woman, l. c., p. 300, fig. 7. But the traces above 
the right hand do not suggest an object of this shape; and the restoration does not account for the 
traces along the edge of the background, in front of the woman’s legs. 


[43 |] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


Persians in the second Persian War and was restored by Themistocles.”’ 
This hypothesis is supported by its author with an impressive array of 
evidence as to the divinities worshipped at Phlya and the mysteries per- 
formed in their honor. 

The foregoing enumeration of the theories advanced with regard to the 
subjects of the reliefs shows that their interpretation remains to a great 
extent an unsolved riddle. But their underlying meaning is clear, even if 
its symbolical expression cannot be fully explained. The monuments evi- 
dently come from a sanctuary where a divinity was worshipped as the 
Giver of Life. Whether the central figure on the front of the Ludovisi 
relief is a woman in child-birth, or, as seems more probable, a goddess 
rising into the light of day, the action symbolises the renewal of life. 
And the weighing scene on the Boston relief is best explained as typifying 
the changing seasons —the withdrawal of life into the lower world in the 
winter and its miraculous return in the spring. The universality of the 
worship of this life-giving divinity is suggested by the four strongly di- 
versified figures of worshippers on the sides of the monuments. 


3. The Date and Style of the Relwef 


The monument in Rome is assigned by all authorities to the transitional 
period, the dates proposed for it varying between 470 and 450 B.c. And 
the Boston relief is so closely related to it in style and technique, as well as 
in the external features of material, size and shape, and in the spirit in 
which the subjects are treated, that the two marbles must have been 
executed at the same time under the direction of the same artist, if not 
necessarily by the same hand.! 

Because of the volutes on the Boston relief and the indication of stony 
soil on the companion-piece, Marshall assigns the monuments to an Ionic 
school. That their style is “Ionic,” as opposed to “Attic” or “ Pelopon- 
nesian,”’ is apparent: but the term has a rather vague meaning at this 

1 This unity of style has been denied, notably by Gardner, Klein, Casson and Powers. Gardner 
J. H.S., 1. c., suggests that the Boston relief is either a modern forgery, or a product of the neo- 
Attic school, or a fifth-century work by a sculptor of inferior merit and different traditions. His 
arguments are discussed in A. J. A. XXII, 1918, pp. 126 ff., where most of the differences between 


the two reliefs are explained as due to the different subjects represented, rather than to the manner 
of their representation. 


[ 44 ] 


FIFTH CENTURY B.C. 


period, when Athens had become the leader of Ionic Greece, and when 
Ionic characteristics are found not only there, but in such widely separated 
districts as northern Greece, Olympia, Magna Graecia, and Sicily. 

Studniczka, emphasising the numerous parallels in contemporary 
Attic vase painting, calls the relief ‘ Attic-Ionic.”’ But this does not prove 
that they were made by an Athenian sculptor. Very few Attic reliefs of 
this period are preserved; and only one of them, the relief in the Vatican 
representing a woman seated in an attitude of dejection with her head on 
her hand, can be cited as a stylistic parallel (Helbig, Fuhrer,’ no. 89). The 
fine stele of a youth from Sunium (Picard, La sculpture antique, p. 386, 
fig. 117) continues the tradition of Attic pre-Persian marble sculpture, but 
differs strongly from the reliefs under discussion in the type of the face, in 
the rendering of the muscles, in the careful finish of the slightly polished 
surface. The material of our reliefs also has a bearing on the question; for 
it is probable that Pentelic marble would have been used for such archi- 
tectural monuments made in Attica at this time. 

A stronger case has been presented by Ashmole in favor of a South 
Italian Ionic school. The stylistic relationship between our monuments 
and the small votive terra-cotta reliefs found in great numbers at Locri is 
undeniable. Moreover, the well-known stele of a woman holding a dove in 
the Conservatori Museum (Ashmole, J. c., pl. x1) which, though dis- 
tinctly more archaic, furnishes the closest sculptural parallel to the three- 
sided reliefs, is even more closely related to the Locrian terra-cottas. The 
reliefs, however, contain certain new features for the origin of which we 
must look elsewhere. 

The style in which the draperies are executed can be most truly de- 
scribed as ‘‘transitional.”’ For the folds of the chitons are rendered for the 
most part by series of parallel lines, wavy or straight in accordance with 
archaic convention, while the surfaces of the mantles reveal a careful study 
of the actual, accidental folds and creases that appear in soft woolen cloth. 
In the Olympian sculptures this new style is carried still further. The folds 
have a tendency to take the form of loops, or ‘“‘eyes.’’ This is especially 
well illustrated by the kneeling Lapith woman, E, from the Olympian west 
pediment. Similar loops appear in the himation of Philis on the stele from 
Thasos, and in a rudimentary form in the Conservatori stele which has 


[45 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


often been ascribed to a North Greek school. They are to be seen also in 
the mantle of the smiling goddess on the Boston relief. Similar “‘eye- 
folds,” drawn in outline and often filled with dilute glaze to indicate 
shadows, are found in a small series of Attic vase paintings, executed about 
460 s.c., most of which are demonstrably influenced by the great frescoes 
of the period, e. g. the volute krater in New York (Furtwiangler-Reichhold- 
Hauser, Griech. Vasenmaleret, II, pls. 116, 117) and the Argonaut krater in 
the Louvre (ibid., II, pl. 108). A fragment in Athens with a representation 
of a seated woman furnishes a close parallel to the stele of Philis in the 
treatment of the folds about the hips. It is obvious that these eye-folds 
were not invented by the vase-painters; and since they hardly occur on 
contemporary sculptures in the round, it may be inferred that the artists 
of our reliefs and of the Olympian pediments, as well as those of the vases, 
borrowed this new convention from the painters of the frescoes. 

The style of the reliefs cannot be fully comprehended without taking 
into account the colors with which large portions of the surface were 
originally colored. It may be regarded as certain that the background was 
painted, and that the garments were distinguished by different tints. Cer- 
tain accessories, like the latchets of the sandals, the strings of the lyre, 
the fillet of the old woman, the handle of the balance, were not indicated 
plastically at all, but were left to be added by paint. Moreover, many 
details were only made clearly perceptible by the addition of color. In 
the figures of the mourning goddess and the incense burner the edge of the 
himaticn running along the forearm is in the lowest possible relief, and the 
same is true of the mantle of the smiling goddess where it is outlined 
against the background. The loose sleeves of the Hours which fall over the 
arms of the rising goddess, and the sleeve of the mourning goddess which 
falls upon her thigh are again in very low relief. The sleeves of the rising 
goddess appear as if stuck upon the background; and the edges of her 
chiton are projected upon the background at either side in the same way. 
All this was made clear when the different garments were distinguished 
from one another as well as from the flesh parts and the background by the 
application of colors. In the same way the sculptors of the Olympic pedi- 
ments relied largely on the use of color to attain the effect at which they 
were aiming. On several of the figures a portion of the drapery lies flat 


[46 ] 


FIFTH CENTURY B.C. 


along the body with its edge marked by a barely perceptible line, so that 
the garment when seen at a distance could not be distinguished from the 
flesh except by its different color. 

Two other qualities of the reliefs help to connect them with the frescoes 
of the transitional age. In the discussion of the subjects attention has 
been called to the contrasts presented by the four figures of worshippers on 
the wings of the monuments. This clear differentiation of their characters 
is achieved by a skilful selection of motives, poses and costume, and to a 
limited degree by the variation of bodily traits. The figures are for the 
most part taken from the repertory of types already created, but they are 
given a new and richer significance. The old woman on the left wing of the 
Boston relief is represented not only as aged, but as belonging to a humble 
station, and the courtesan playing the flutes on the Ludovisi relief 1s dif- 
ferentiated from the matron burning incense not only by her action and 
her nudity, but by her free and easy pose. Analogous attempts at what 
might be called character drawing (700s) are found in the Olympia sculp- 
tures, in the Melian terra-cotta reliefs, in some vase-paintings of this 
period; and it may inferred from the descriptions of Pausanias that the 
Polygnotan frescoes were not lacking in this quality. 

The two seated goddesses on the front of the Boston relief illustrate 
aaos rather than 400s. The scene would, indeed, have been unintelligible if 
the emotions with which these figures watch the result of the weighing had 
not been clearly expressed by variations in pose and gesture and facial 
expression. And the means of expression is characteristic of the period. 
The pose of the sorrowing goddess is that of the “Penelope type,’’ illus- 
trated by the relief in the Vatican already referred to, by a vase-painting 
and by Melian reliefs. As regards the smile of the “Aphrodite” we may 
recall Pliny’s statement to the effect that Polygnotos was the first to give 
his figures a pronounced facial expression, and compare the Lapith bitten 
by a Centaur in the west pediment at Olympia and the heads on the 
Argonaut krater, of which it has been remarked that “whereas in earlier 
Greek vase paintings figures in the most violent action have perfectly calm 
features, here quietly posed figures have a strong facial expression.” 

The sculptor of the reliefs, while he followed the tradition of archaic 
Ionic art, is thus seen to have been alive to the new movement which 


[47] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


strove to imitate nature more directly in the representation of the human 
form and of drapery, and to give a new meaning to the figures through the 
differentiation of character and emotion. The leaders of this movement, in 
some of its phases at least, were the painters rather than the sculptors. 
Wherever the reliefs were made, certain features of their style which at 
first sight seem hard to explain are best accounted for as due to the in- 
fluence of Polygnotos and his school. 


18. Smautut Heap or A YOUNG WARRIOR 


Pentelic marble. Height, 0.14 m. 

The nose is broken off, and the surface is somewhat worn. Large drill holes in the top of the 
helmet and on each side in front of the ears were for the attachment of the missing crest and 
cheek-pieces. Traces of the fingers of a left hand appear on the left side of the helmet. 

From Athens. 

Catharine Page Perkins Collection, 1895. 

Inv. 95.66. Ann. Rep. 1895, p. 25. M. F. A. Bulletin VI, 1908, p. 23. 





This is evidently a fragment from the sculptural decoration of a temple 
of the fifth century B.c. Its size suggests that it comes from a metope, or 
a frieze in high relief; but the fact that it is carved fully in the round, and 
equally finished on all sides, makes it more likely that it belonged to a 
pediment group. The fingers, of which there are traces on the left side of 


[ 48 | 


FIFTH CENTURY B.C. 


the helmet, may belong to the left hand of the figure itself, but more prob- 
ably to that of an opponent. The warrior wears an Attic helmet, which 
was originally furnished with crest and cheek-pieces worked separately — 
of marble rather than bronze, to judge from the size of the dowel-holes. 
His face is of a broad oval shape with very full cheeks. The eyes are 





widely opened and not set deeply; the lids are heavy and the eyeballs 
rounded. The small ears are delicately carved. 

The type is Pheidian; and the execution is on a level with that of the 
best Attic work of its kind from the Periclean age. 


19. Smaty Heap or A WARRIOR, IN RELIEF 


Pentelic marble. Height, 0.085 m. 

Along the right side of the helmet remains of the background, showing that the depth of relief was 
about 0.045 m. The end of the nose and the chin are missing. In the top of the helmet a 
drill-hole 0.006 m. in diameter, 0.022 m. deep, for the attachment of a crest. The right side of 
the face roughly worked. 

From Athens. Anonymous gift, 1918. 

Inv. 18.431. M.F. A. Bulletin XVII, 1919, p. 29. 


Head of a bearded warrior in profile to left, wearing a Corinthian helmet 
with a crest, now missing, worked separately. The fragment evidently 
comes from a frieze of small dimensions, representing a combat. 


[ 49 |] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


The surfaces of the helmet and the warrior’s cheek are skilfully 
modelled, and the rendering of details — eye, ear, lips, and beard — though 
sketchy, is effective when the head is seen in favorable lighting. Style and 
technique, as well as material and provenance, show that the fragment 
was part of the sculptural decoration of an Athenian building of the late 
fifth century B.c. 

It is possible to identify this building with some degree of confidence. 
There is only one temple known to have been erected in Athens at this 
period with a sculptured frieze representing a battle, at once of such fine 
quality and of such small size — the little Ionic temple of Athena Nike at 
the entrance of the Acropolis. Its frieze is slightly under eighteen inches 
in height with battle scenes carved in relief on three sides, and this head 





meets the requirements exactly as regards scale and depth of relief, while 
the style is appropriate. Detailed comparison is impossible, since all the 
heads on the extant slabs are either broken off or badly mutilated. Nor 
can this head be fitted to any of the preserved figures of the frieze in the 
British Museum or on the temple itself. Portions of the frieze are, how- 
ever, entirely lost, and our fragment may well belong to a missing slab. 


[ 50 J 


ee eee ee eee ee 


FIFTH CENTURY B.C. 


20. SmMauL HEAD oF A YOUTH 


Pentelic marble. Height, 0.097 m. The surface has been injured by cleaning with acid. 
Purchased, 1914. Inv. 14.526. 


Like the female head, no. 21, this is probably a fragment from a votive 
statuette. The face is longer and narrower, and the chin smaller. The 





sketchy treatment of the hair and the setting of the eyes suggest that it 
is an Attic work of the late fifth century B.c. 


21. SMALL FEMALE Heap 


Pentelic marble. Height, 0.12 m. 

Part of the back of the head is lacking, and several irregular holes are drilled in the crown. 
The nose and chin are injured, and parts of the right side are covered with incrustation. 

From Athens. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 

Inv. 01.8201. 


The head is from a statuette, apparently in a quiet standing pose. The 
face is a long oval, fairly heavy at the chin; the eyes are not set deeply; the 
lips are closed. The hair is worn short, and forms a thick mass, with the 
surface only roughly worked. It is parted above the middle of the forehead. 


[51 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


Like no. 18, this is an Attic original of the latter part of the fifth cen- 
tury B.c., though of a less vigorous type and of softer execution. It may 
be compared with one of the heads from the Argive Heraeum (The Argive 





Heraeum, I, pl. xxxit, 1 and 2), and with the statuette dedicated by Lysi- 
kleides at Rhamnous (Athens, National Museum, no. 199; ’E@. ’Apx. 1891, 
Do-0D; plat): . 


22. STATUE OF LEDA WITH THE SWAN 


Greek marble. Height, 0.88 m. 

Missing, Leda’s head, right hand, left arm, right leg from above the knee, part of the left foot; the 
lower part of the garment on the left side and the base; also the head, neck, and tail of the 
swan. Several folds of the drapery are damaged; at the back a portion of it has been broken 
off, and the surface of the break roughly worked over. The preservation of the surface is 
good, except for some corrosion of the drapery covering the left breast and the left thigh, and 
on the breast of the swan. 

There are numerous traces of repairs, executed probably in Renaissance times when the statue 
was used as the decoration of a fountain. The missing parts were restored, as is shown by 
dowel-holes in all the broken surfaces. The figure was set into a new base, to accomplish which 
the lower part of the drapery on the left side was chiselled off. A piece of marble projecting 
under the left foot was also removed. The water pipe passed through a hole drilled obliquely 
through the statue up into the neck of the swan. The neck and head were restored in bronze, 
as is shown by two small dowel-holes beside the opening. 

From the Farnese Palace at Caprarola near Rome. Apparently referred to in Centonovantuno 
epigrammt latini d’autore ignoto che illustrano le opere d’arte del palazzo Farnese in Caprarola, 
pubblicati dal Prof. Giuseppe Cugnori. Perugia MDCCCVIII. Epigram XXVIII is entitled 
‘“‘In fontem Ledae.”’ 

[52] 


a, ae ee ee a ee Te ee a ee. 


FIFTH CENTURY B.C. 


Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1904. 
Inv. 04.14. Ann. Rep. 1904, p. 54, no. 3. M. F. A. Bulletin V, 1907, p. 15. Amelung, Ausonia 

III, 1909, p. 95, fig. 2. Brunn-Bruckmann-Arndt, Denkmédiler, pl. 678, 3 figs., with comment 

by Caskey. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 68, fig. 76. 

Leda is springing up to protect the swan which she clasps to her side 
with her right arm, while her left was raised to ward off the attack of the 
eagle. She leans far forward with the right leg slightly bent and the left 
advanced. The left foot, resting on an elevation, is shod in a thick-soled 
sandal, the straps of which were indicated only by color. Her sudden im- 
pulsive movement has caused the Doric chiton, which she wears with a 
deep overfold and open on the right side, to become unclasped on the right 
shoulder and to slip down below the breast, with the result that the whole 
of the right side of the figure is exposed. An effect of vigorous motion is 
achieved by this disorder in dress, by the resulting prominence of the nude 
right leg, and by the heavy folds of drapery sweeping back from the left 
knee. The girl is intent on guarding the bird from its pursuer, unconscious 
of the trick played by Zeus, and a very subordinate part is allotted to the 
erotic element in the myth, which especially interested Hellenistic and 
Renaissance artists. 

The figure shows to a certain extent the characteristics of sculpture in 
high relief, for it was evidently designed to be placed against a background 
in such a way that it would be seen only from its right side; hence the 
greater prominence of the left breast, the disproportionate length of the 
left thigh, and the flat treatment of the whole of the left side. The model- 
ling of the arm has been justly criticised as too smooth and fully rounded, 
and the left knee is unpleasantly angular; further, in several places a large 
drill, carelessly used in the preliminary blocking-out of the statue, has left 
its marks on the finished surface. But on the other hand the free and vigor- 
ous rendering of the drapery and the freshness of the nude surfaces leave 
no doubt that the statue, though from the hand of a sculptor of uneven 
merit, is a Greek original of about 400 B.c. 

Timotheos is believed to have created a Leda, which is preserved in 
numerous Graeco-Roman replicas, the best being in the Capitoline 
Museum, and it has been proposed to assign the Boston Leda to the same 
artist or to his school (Arndt in Brunn-Bruckmann, Denkmédler, text to 
plate 648). But there are striking differences in type, style, and spirit 


[ 53 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


which make this attribution untenable. The Capitoline Leda is a quietly 
standing figure, wearing a heavy himation enveloping the legs, and her 
swan is so small as to have only the value of an attribute. Whereas the 
sculptor of the Boston Leda was thoroughly alive to the dramatic possi- 





bilities of his subject, Timotheos created merely a gracefully posed statue 
affording pleasing contrasts between the nude forms, the diaphanous 
chiton, and the heavier folds of the mantle. 

The original of the Capitoline statue was influenced by an already ex- 
isting type, as Furtwingler has shown (Sammlung Sabouroff, Vases, In- 
troduction, p. 1), and the Boston Leda must also be a forerunner rather 
than a later variant of the Timothean statue. For in style the closest 
analogies are furnished by works of the late fifth century like the Nereids 


[ 54 ] 


FIFTH CENTURY B.C. 


from Xanthus in the British Museum, and the reliefs of the Nike balus- 
trade on the Athenian Acropolis. The use of the Doric chiton to reveal 
rather than to conceal the quickly moving forms, and the motive of the 
raised and advanced leg with deep folds sweeping back from it are illus- 
trated repeatedly in these works, and can be traced back to the Parthenon 
pediments, in particular to such figures as the charioteers in the west 
pediment shown in Carrey’s drawings. The drapery details, though less 
delicate, resemble those of the reliefs of the Nike balustrade; for example, 
Amelung has compared the way in which Leda’s chiton is stretched over 
her advanced leg with the fragment on slab 10 (Kekule, Die Reliefs an der 
Balustrade der Athena Nike, pl. 1, 4); the deep folds running back from the 
knee correspond exactly with those on the figures of Nike which are sim- 
ilarly posed; and the horizontal folds under the left breast of the Leda, with 
sharp ridges and deep hollows, are also characteristic of the draperies of the 
frieze. It is therefore probable on these grounds also that the Leda is an 
Attic work contemporary with the sculpture of the Nike bastion, that is 
of the late fifth century. 


23. GRAVE STELE OF A WoMAN 


Pentelic marble. Height, 0.58 m.; width at top, 0.457 m.; at bottom, 0.425 m. 
Missing, the lower half of the stele. The surface of the woman’s head is corroded. The 
sides of the stele are carefully smoothed; the top and the back are left rough. 
Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1904. 
Inv. 04.16. Ann. Rep. 1904, p. 54, no. 2. Reinach, Gazette des beaux arts 1912, VIII, p. 68. 
Répertoire des reliefs I, p. 202. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 72, fig. 82. 
The stele is enclosed at the sides by narrow, Doric pilasters projecting 
3 cm. from the background and supporting a pediment with akroteria in 
the form of simple palmettes carved in low relief. Within this frame the 
youthful figure stands with her body nearly in front view and her head in 
profile to left. She is gazing into a mirror — a disc with a simple handle — 
which she holds in her left hand. Her right arm hangs at her side. She 
wears a sleeved chiton with an overfold reaching to the waist, and a himat- 
ion. This outer garment covers both shoulders, and, passing under the 
right arm and across the body, is thrown over the left arm at the elbow. 
Her hair is bound up; and the back of her head is apparently covered by a 


[55 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


veil, the end of which floats out behind, its folds being engraved in the 
background. She wears a large ear-disc. 

The modest size of the stele, the simplicity of the architectonic frame- 
work, and the low relief are characteristic of Attic grave monuments of the 
end of the fifth century. The arrangement of the himation and the model- 





ling of the breasts — one in front view, the other in profile — are also 
paralleled on a contemporary group of reliefs, of which the stele of Hegeso 
(Conze, Die atteschen Grabreliefs, I, no. 68, pl. xxx) is the finest example. 
The fragment may further be compared with the stele of Mynno in Berlin 
(Conze, no. 38, pl. xvir; Furtwiingler, Sammlung Sabouroff, pl. xrx, In- 
troduction, p. 13), and with that of Mika and Dion (Conze, no. 157, pl. 
xiv). The seated figure of Mika holds a mirror of the same type. 


[ 56 ] 


FIFTH CENTURY B.C. 


24. FRAGMENTARY GRAVE MONUMENT, IN THE ForRM OF COLOSSAL 
LEKYTHOS, DECORATED IN RELIEF 


Pentelic marble. Height, of the fragment, 1.10 m.; of the panel, 0.55 m. 

The neck and handle, and the foot, which are missing, have been restored in plaster. The face of 
Demainete is worn off; and the whole surface has been injured by cleansing with acid. 

Catharine Page Perkins Collection, 1896. 

Inv. 96.700. Ann. Rep. 1896, p. 23, no. 6. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 104, fig. 128. 


Six figures representing the deceased with his family, are carved in low 
relief in a panel bounded at the top by a raised band and at the bottom by 





a narrow fillet. The height of the panel is about one-half that of the body 
of the vase, and it occupies two-thirds of the circumference. The principal 
figure is an elderly, bearded man, seated in a chair, in profile to left. His 
name, KAAAIAS, is inscribed above his head. A himation covers his left 
upper arm and the lower part of his body, and he wears shoes. With his 
right hand he clasps the hand of a matronly woman who stands before him 
with bowed head, her left hand raised to her shoulder, her right foot drawn 


[57 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


back. She wears a sleeved chiton and a long himation covering her right 
shoulder, and passing under her right arm, across her body and over her 
left elbow. Her hair is confined by two fillets and a net, and she wears an 
earring. Her name is illegible. Behind her stands a second woman, KAAAIST- 
APETH, also in profile to right, and similarly attired, save that her hair is 
bound up without a net, and that she has 
no earring. Her right hand apparently held 
an object which was left to be indicated in 
color. Behind her stands a girl in profile to 
right, with her right hand hanging by her 
side and holding a box by a cord, and with 
another box in her advanced left hand. She 
wears a long, simple dress with tight sleeves 
extending to the wrists, a sakkos and an 
earring. There are no traces of an inscrip- 
tion. Behind the chair of the principal figure 
stands a young girl, AHMAINETH, in profile 
to left. Her hair hangs in a loose coil be- 
hind; she wears a chiton, and a himation 
with overfold reaching to the thighs and 
covering her left arm which is bent at the 
elbow. Behind her stands a young man 
with a short beard, EVBIOS, in profile to 
left, holding a strigil in his raised right hand. 
He wears a short cloak covering his body 
from the waist to the knees, and caught up under the left armpit. Behind 
his shoulder is an object like the top of a staff, or a branch. 

The use of this type of grave monument in Athenian cemeteries is well 
illustrated by the family plot of Agathon and Sosikrates in the Kera- 
meikos. A lekythos, similar to this, was erected at each end, while the 
intervening space was occupied by several other monuments of various 
forms (cf. Brueckner, Der Friedhof am Eridanos, p. 71, fig. 43). 

The present example is an Attic work of average merit, to be dated at 
the end of the fifth century B.c. 





[58 |] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 


25. CoLossaAL Hrap or ZErus 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.48 m.; length of face about 0.26 m. 
The base of the neck is worked for insertion in a statue. Missing, the greater part of the nose (at 
present restored in plaster), some chips from the base of the neck in front and from the locks of 





hair falling behind the ears. There are two holes for dowels in the crown. Incrustation has 
been removed from the right side of the face. 

From Mylasa, Caria. Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1904. 

Inv. 04.12. Ann. Rep. 1904, p. 55, no. 5. Brunn-Bruckmann, Denkmiier, pls. 572, 573, with 
comment by Furtwangler and Arndt. M.F.A. Bulletin III, 1905, p.4. Fowler-Wheeler, Greek 
Archaeology, p. 231, fig. 173. Lechat, Phidias, p. 80, fig. 17. Gardner, Six Greek Sculptors, p. 
108, pl. xxvutr. Bulle, Der schéne Mensch,? pl. 230, p. 498. Furtwangler-Urlichs, Denkmdler 
griechischer und rémischer Skulptur,? p. 85, figs. 23-25. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 58, 


fig. 61. 
L 59 |] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


The head was made separately for insertion in a statue, which was 
draped, and, to judge from the forward bend of the neck, probably seated. 
The face was turned somewhat to its right. Two holes in the crown indi- 
cate that some sort of a headdress was fastened upon the head. At the left 
side of the neck is a small fragment of the himation which was draped over 
the god’s shoulder. 

The head differs from the prevailing type of Zeus especially in the ar- 
rangement of the hair. But in this as well as in other respects it bears a 





striking likeness to the head of the Olympian Zeus of Pheidias, as repre- 
sented on a late coin of Elis (cf. the illustration). This shows the same low 
forehead and short upper lip, while the arrangement of the hair and beard 
is practically identical. A depression running around the skull suggests 
that the marble head was encircled, like that on the coin, by a wreath, 
which was made separately of bronze. Below this depression the hair is 
carried from a parting above the middle of the forehead to the sides in 
thick, wavy locks, leaving the small ears exposed, and falling behind them 
in curls upon the neck. The top and back of the head are only roughly 


[ 60 ] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 


blocked out. The beard is composed of small locks lightly modelled, and 
suggesting, though not strongly, the schematic style of the fifth century. 
The longer locks at the bottom are worked out with the aid of the drill. 
The forehead is broad and low, with a slight swelling of the lower part in 
the centre. The eyes are not set deeply in the head; the openings are nar- 
row and the lids small. The lips are slightly parted. 

The head is not to be regarded as a copy of the type created by Pheidias, 
but as a free adaptation executed by a sculptor of the fourth century B.c. 
The carving of the hair and the soft modelling of the flesh are in the style 
of the period of Praxiteles and Skopas. Something of the force and maj- 
esty of the prototype has been lost, and the mildness which, according to 
literary tradition, was one of its distinguishing qualities, has become posi- 
tive weakness. It is the production rather of a fine school than of a great 
master. Its finding place — Mylasa was not far from Halikarnassos — 
lends probability to the suggestion that it is from the hand of one of the 
sculptors who worked on the decoration of the Mausoleum. In style also 
it is related to these sculptures, resembling especially the bearded head in 
the British Museum, Catalogue, II, 1054, pl. 20, 1. 

Mylasa was the centre of the cult of the Carian Zeus Labraundos, who 
is represented on coins as wearing the polos (B. M. Cat. Coins, Caria, pl. 22, 
1,5). The statue may have been made for a temple of this divinity, and is 
to be restored, on the evidence of the holes in the crown, with a polos, 
probably of bronze. 


26. Heap or Dionysos (?) 


Greek marble. Height, 0.34 m.; length of face, 0.215 m. 

Broken at the base of the neck. There is a large break in the top of the head, and the ends of the 
locks behind the ears are missing. The surface is slightly injured on the forehead, the lower 
lip, the right side of the mouth and chin. 

From Athens; said to have been found near the choregic monument of Lysikrates. 

Catharine Page Perkins Collection, 1896. 

Inv. 96.695. Ann. Rep. 1896, p. 22, no. 4. 


The head, which has been broken off from a statue of slightly more than 
life-size, is inclined toward the right shoulder. The hair is bound by a 
broad fillet passing across the top of the forehead. It is parted in the mid- 
dle, and, escaping from under the fillet at the temples, is drawn to the sides 


[61 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 





in thick masses of wavy locks which cover all but the lobes of the ears. 
On the top of the head the hair is less carefully worked, and at the back, 
where it is gathered into a large knot at the nape of the neck, the surface 
is only blocked out. A separate curl hangs down behind each ear. 

The name and even the sex of the divinity represented cannot be deter- 
mined with certainty. It has been proposed to connect the head with an 
effeminate type of Dionysos, in which the fillet and the hair are similarly 
arranged. But most of the examples of the type are later than the time of 
Praxiteles and Skopas, whereas this head is of severer style. The wreath of 
ivy which is the distinguishing feature on many of the heads is missing 
here. And a similar fillet occurs on heads which seem certainly female, and 
which are therefore usually identified as members of the entourage of 
Dionysos, and called Ariadne or maenads. Cf. the well-known head in the 
style of Skopas from the slope of the Athenian Acropolis (National 
Museum, no. 182), which also has a fillet and small locks hanging behind 
the ears. But this has also been identified as Dionysos (by Furtwangler, 
Sammlung Sabouroff, text to pl. xxi), like a Skopaic head of more virile 
and passionate type in Leyden (Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, V, p. 274, 


[ 62 ] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 





pl. tv). The present example, though somewhat empty of expression, 
has the ideal calm and nobility of an earlier period. 

The head is an original work of the Attic school, to be dated early in the 
fourth century B.c. In view of the reported finding place, the statue may 
be supposed to have stood in or near the Street of Tripods in Athens. 


27. CoLossaL Hap oF DEMETER (?) 


Parian marble. Height, 0.47 m. 

Made separately for insertion in a statue. The block included part of the breast and shoulders; 
its base is worked in two oblique planes with roughly tooled surfaces which met at the bottom 
in aridge. The missing top of the head was also made of a separate piece; the joint is a circular 
plane 24 cm. in diameter, with its surface roughly worked except for a narrow contact band 
around the edge. In it, about 9 cm. from the front, is a cylindrical dowel-hole 3.5 cm. deep. 
The greater portions of the nose, lips and chin are broken off; a fragment of the veil on the 
left side is missing; the eyebrows and eyelids and the hair on the left side are chipped and worn. 
Apparently the head was found lying a little below the surface of the soil, with its right side 
upward. Here its surface has a brown earthy deposit, as well as marks left by the roots of 
plants, and more than twenty scars due to the finder’s pick. On the left side of the face and on 
the neck much of the original, carefully finished surface remains unimpaired, with a light, 
creamy patina. 

From Greece. Bartlett Fund and special contribution, 1915. 

Inv. 15.856. Ann. Rep. 1915, p.96. M.F.A. Bulletin XIV, 1916, p.10. Caskey, A.J.A. XX, 1916, 
pp. 383-390, pls. xvi-xvi. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 85, fig. 95. 


[ 63 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


The head is from a draped statue which was about one-third larger than 
life-size, and may therefore have been a cult image in a temple. Its pose 
cannot be determined, though the erect carriage of the head suggests that 
the figure was standing rather than seated. The left shoulder was raised; 
and the head is inclined slightly to its left, and turned in the same direction, 











so that it must have appeared almost in three-quarter view to a spectator 
standing in front of the statue. That this is the point of view from which 
the artist intended the face to be seen is shown by certain details of work- 
manship: the back of the head is merely blocked out in the rough; both 
ears are somewhat carelessly executed, but the left is the less finished of 
the two; and the sides of the face are not symmetrical, the bridge of the 


[ 64 ] 


= ia TS 


es eS eee SS ae TY Pe 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 


nose being turned slightly to the left, and the left cheek receding in such 
a way that the ear appears more prominently on this side than on the other. 

The drapery which covers the top and back of the head, instead of 
being part of the mantle as is usual on heads of this type, seems to be a 
small veil, or kerchief. At the front is a narrow band which presses into the 
hair, and is to be explained as a fillet, or more probably as one edge of the 
kerchief itself tied tightly about the head. Behind this the cloth is ar- 
ranged more loosely, and falls at the sides in simple, vertical folds. Its 
surface is left rough for the applica- 
tion of color. 

The type of the face is matronly, 
combining force and majesty with a 
serenity and gentleness of expression 
which is truly Praxitelean. The hair 
surrounding the forehead is drawn 
from the central parting to the sides 
in thick masses which fall so low as to 
cover the tips of the ears. Its surface, 
like that of the kerchief, is left rough; 
the details are indicated by lightly 
chiselled, irregular wavy lines, with 
deeper depressions at intervals, divid- 
ing the mass on each side into five or 
six strands. The forehead is broad, low, and of the triangular shape 
usual in the fourth century. Its distinguishing feature is its great prom- 
inence in the centre — at the root of the nose and immediately above. 
A horizontal section of the head taken just above the level of the brows 
shows that the outline is a very pronounced curve, flattened out slightly 
over the eyes, but becoming more marked at its apex (A, in the accom- 
panying diagram). This daring departure from nature contributes greatly 
to the force and ideal beauty of the countenance. The forehead of the 
head from Chios, no. 26 (EK, in the diagram) has almost identically the 
same curve. That of the Leconfield head of Aphrodite, which has been 
claimed as an original from the hand of Praxiteles, is similar, but with the 
central protuberance less pronounced (C). The forehead of the Kaufmann 


[ 65 ] 





GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


replica of the Cnidian Aphrodite (F) swells out as strongly; but the curve 
is more regular. A comparison with the Demeter of Knidos (D), in which 
the curve is very much flattened in the central portion, brings out clearly 
the relationship of the other four heads as regards the formation of the 
brow. The forehead of the Praxitelean Hermes (B) has a more compli- 
cated structure; but here also it is the pronounced swelling of the central 
portion which, though differently formed, gives the force needed to offset 
the soft, almost effeminate character of the lower part of the face. 

In this head, as well as in the head from Chios and in the Hermes of 
Praxiteles, the forehead recedes rapidly to the sides with the result that the 





ABC DEF FE DC BA 
inner angles of the eyes are deeply set, while their outer portions are not 
overshadowed strongly by the brows. The opening is long and narrow ; the 
upper lid droops, and the lower lid is very slightly accentuated. Towards 
the outer corner it is raised hardly at all from the eyeball; and both lids 
meet the eyeball in delicate curves, not with sharp edges as in all Greek 
works before Praxiteles and in every Graeco-Roman copy. In the colossal 
head the eyes are larger proportionately; their inner corners are more 
deeply sunk; and the upper lids droop farther, so that the gaze is directed 
downward. But the expression is the same, and it is attained by the same 
technical means. 

In the lower half of the face the resemblance to the Chios head is less 
marked, though the parts about the mouth show the same subtle modelling, 
and the slightly parted lips were soft and full. The contour is a long oval, 
narrower than in the other head, but diminishing less rapidly towards the 
base. This greater heaviness of the chin and the fullness of the cheeks give 


[ 66 |] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 


the face a matronly character which distinguishes it from the Praxitelean 
types of Aphrodite. 

The head is beautifully poised on the massive neck. Its slight turn to 
the left brings the sterno-cleido-mastoid muscle into play; but it is not 
unduly emphasised. And, in the same way, the soft folds of flesh about 
the throat, while clearly rendered, are not exaggerated into a ‘‘collier de 
Venus.” 

The fragment is an undoubted original of the fourth century B.c., and 
closely related to the art of Praxiteles both in conception and execution. 
The sketchy, impressionistic treatment of the hair, the contrast between 
its rough texture and the perfectly finished surfaces of the flesh, the gentle 
expression of the eyes and mouth — qualities which this head shares with 
the two following heads — are also characteristic of the Hermes at Olym- 
pia. There is no trace of weakness, no exaggeration of the Praxitelean 
softness, such as is shown by the later imitators of his style. 

In the absence of more definite attributes than the veil, the identifica- 
tion of the goddess must remain conjectural. But the choice is limited to 
matronly divinities such as Hera, Leto, and Demeter. And of these the 
last named seems the most appropriate. If it be accepted, a comparison at 
once suggests itself with the most famous fourth century representation of 
the goddess — the Demeter of Knidos in the British Museum. This work 
has been assigned by some critics to the school of Praxiteles, while others 
with truer insight have connected it with Skopas. The conception of the 
sorrowing Demeter, mourning the loss of her daughter, would have ap- 
pealed more to the temperament of the latter artist. The intense gaze of 
the widely opened eyes set deeply under the high, flat forehead, the wasted 
cheeks and the curve of the lips give the head a strongly emotional 
quality such as cannot be paralleled among the works of the sculptor of the 
Satyr and the Hermes. While nothing is known of the Praxitelean statues 
of Demeter, we may imagine that he would have chosen to represent the 
Eleusinian goddess as the dispenser of the fruits of the earth to mortals, 
majestic, radiant with life and health, with a gentle gaze and smiling 
lips. This fragment from the hand of a contemporary showing the strong 
influence of his style, may therefore give us a reflection of one of the lost 
works of the master. 


[ 67 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


28. HEAD oF APHRODITE 


Parian marble. Height, 0.288 m.; length of face, 0.162 m. 

The base of the neck is worked for insertion. Except for a small break at the tip of the nose, 
another on the chin, and a few unimportant fractures on the hair, the preservation is perfect. 
The surface of the face is in places slightly corroded, apparently as the result of cleaning with 
acid. The hair has taken on a brownish color from the soil. 

Found in Athens; formerly in the possession of the late Mr. Pallis. 

Francis Bartlett Collection, 1908. 

Inv. 03.743. Ann. Rep. 1903, p. 57, no. 7. M.F. A. Bulletin I, 1903, p. 26. Von Mach, Handbook 
of Greek and Roman Sculpture, pl. 408, p. 415. Henry James, The American Scene, p. 252. 
Antike Denkmédler, II, pl. 60, with comment by Marshall. Waldmann, Griechische Originale, 
pls. 152, 1538. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 84, fig. 93. 

This head, carved life-size from a block of Parian marble of exception- 
ally beautiful grain and translucency, was made to be inserted in a draped 
statue. It is inclined and turned somewhat to the right, and the gaze is 
directly slightly downward. As in the preceding head, some inequalities 
are observable in the carving of the two sides of the face: the right cheek 
recedes more rapidly; the right eye is longer, and its inner corner is less 
deeply sunk; the right ear is less carefully worked than the left. 

The hair is confined by a fillet wound twice about the head. Parted 
above the middle of the forehead, the thick soft tresses are carried down 
low at the sides, covering the tips of the ears. The uppermost strands are 
looped back under the fillet to form part of the loosely tied knot which 
rises above the top of the head, while the back-hair is done up into another 
knot below the crown. The forehead is flatter and relatively broader than 
in the preceding head. The eyes, not set deeply under the level brows, 
nor widely opened, have a dreamy gaze, as if they were not fixed upon any 
definite object. The nose is prominent and broad at its root; its delicately 
rounded bridge narrows gradually towards the tip, but the nostrils are well 
dilated. The full cheeks contract gradually towards the small chin, which 
is flattened at the front, with a slight depression in the centre. The sensi- 
tive modelling of the lips and of the parts about them contributes to the 
softness of the expression. 

The fragment is more directly reminiscent of the known works of 
Praxiteles than is the head of Demeter, no. 27. This appears nowhere more 
clearly than in the rendering of the hair. In the words of Mr. Marshall: 
‘There is no better example extant of the Praxitelean manner of treating 


[ 68 ] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 


the long, dressed hair of a woman. Though the Aphrodite of Knidos was 
excellent specially in this particular, the copies of it, one and all, are failures, 
being made by workmen who had lost the Praxitelean tradition and were 
forced to accommodate the forms of the original to the manner of working 
in which they themselves had been trained. The sketchy treatment seen 





here, in the Aphrodite of Olympia, and in the head from Chios, is one 
which cannot be reproduced by pointing.”” The knot on the top of the 
head is not found in copies of known Praxitelean works, while it appears, 
often in an exaggerated form, in the later works of his school, like the 
Capitoline and Medici statues of Aphrodite. But a similar coiffure is illus- 
trated by a fourth century head in Berlin; and in his discussion of it 


[ 69 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


(Sammlung Sabouroff, text to pl. xx1r) Furtwingler has cited numerous 
other contemporary examples. 

The face also is thoroughly Praxitelean, above all in the rendering of 
the eyes and the mouth. The drooping upper lids, the lower lids, drawn 
up slightly and melting, as it were, into the eyeballs, are like those in the 





colossal head (no. 27), the Hermes, and the head from Chios (no. 29), where 
this evanescent treatment is carried to the limit. And the forms of the 
lower part of the face are as similar as possible to those of the Hermes, 
allowance being made for the difference of subject. The indication of the 
red of the lips by a slightly rougher texture, the carving of the groove which 
separates them, the drill holes at the corners of the mouth, the shape of the 


[70 J 





FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 


chin are specially characteristic. A comparison with copies of the Knidian 
Aphrodite shows a general resemblance in type, along with certain marked 
differences. The forehead of our head is higher, broader, and flatter, the 
brows more level, the eyes less widely opened, the nose more delicately 
shaped. The expression is one of reverie, rather than of yearning. 

The close relationship which exists between this head and the known 
works of Praxiteles is best explained on the theory that it is by a contem- 
porary sculptor who was strongly under his influence. 


29. Heap oF A YOUTHFUL GODDESS 


Parian marble. Height, 0.36 m.; length of face, 0.17 m. 

Made separately for insertion in a draped statue. ‘‘The under surface is almost flat. It is carefully 
roughed and in the centre is a rectangular dowel-hole (.036 m. X .027 m., with depth .063 m.) 
for attachment to the body. The original edge is preserved along the back and shows that the 
piece there rested flat upon the torso. In front, where the entire edge is missing, it must have 
been sunk into a mortise, which to judge from a trace of the chiton over the left breast, was of 
considerable depth, for hardly more than the mere edge of drapery would be represented on a 
neck worked for insertion. 

“Along the right shoulder is a roughly cut rectangular channel ending in a square hole (.025 m. 
deep) for a clamp. A hasty restoration leaves just such marks. It is noteworthy that the 
damage which it repaired was the break seen under the edge of the channel, where the sur- 
face of the fracture has been worked over for reattachment. The break in the hair over the left 
temple is also reworked, but apparently the broken part there was refixed merely by cement. 

“The sides of the skull are cut off by planes almost at right angles to each other, which run upwards 
towards the front of the head and somewhat obliquely across it, so that the segment on the 
right is much larger than the other. The right plane is roughed, the left smooth; on both are 
traces of cement. Towards the middle of each is a drill hole, on the right .04 m. deep and .01 in 
diameter, on the left .02 m. deep and .0065m. in diameter; a third of almost the same size as the 
second, is at the very end of the right plane, near the ridge, towards the front of the head... . 
The presence just here of a drill hole, .02 m. deep and .0065 m. in diameter, shows that what 
covered the head was of considerable thickness. . . . It would seem then that the upper piece 
of marble projected .. . . towards the front of the face. 

‘“‘A brown earthy deposit still adheres to all the unworked parts. The finders used acid to cleanse 
the face and destroyed thereby the bloom of the surface. The original polish still exists on a 
large place on the neck, which the acid did not touch. . . . Of reworking or of rubbing down 
there is no trace whatever: nay, on the face in many places—notably on the eyelids and eye- 
balls, on both lips and on places below the eye — are remains of the patina rising above the 
surrounding surface. Save for the damage already mentioned, the head is precisely as it left 
the artist’s chisel. So Professor Furtwingler, Professor Treu, Dr. F. Hauser, Mr. Rodin and 
Mr. Epstein, who have examined the head carefully in view of several erroneous accounts given 
of its condition.” (Marshall, Anteke Denkméler, l. c.) 

The head was found by Antonios Xanthakes while searching for building material on the Palaio- 
kastro on the island of Chios during the Crimean war. ‘His son Stylianos inherited it, upon 
whose death shortly after the earthquake of 1881, his widow presented it to Mr. J.C. Choremes, 
from whose heirs it was bought in 1900 by Mr. E. P. Warren.” (Marshall, zbzd.) 


bond 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 





Gift of Nathaniel Thayer, 1910. 

Inv. 10.70. Ann. Rep. 1910, p. 59. M.F.A. Bulletin VIII, 1910, p. 11. Studniczka, Ath. Mitt. 
XIII, 1888, p. 188. Cecil Smith, Burlington Magazine, July 1903, p. 249; cf. Marshall, ibid., 
p. 376. Rodin, Le Musée, 1904, p. 298. Burlington Fine Arts Club, Exhibition of Ancient 
Greek Art, 1903, Catalogue (1904), no. 44, pl. xxx; cf. Addenda, p. XXV. Conze, Arch. 
Anzeiger XVIII, 1903, p. 144. Antike Denkméler II, pl. 59, with description by Marshall 
(quoted in part above). Marshall, Jahrbuch XXIV, 1909, pp. 73-98. Bulle, Der Schéne 
Mensch,’ pl. 257, p. 537. Waldmann, Griechische Originale, pl. 189. Dickins, B..S.A. XXI, 


1914-16, p.5. The same, Hellenistic Sculpture, p. 23, fig. 13. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculp- 
ture, p. 85, fig. 94. 


The head is carved life-size for insertion in a draped statue. As has been 
made clear in the above description of its condition, the top and back of the 


E24) 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 





fragment were covered in some fashion. This covering, which rested upon 
the two carefully worked planes on either side of the skull and was secured 
by three pins, must have been of marble; and it can hardly have been 
other than a piece of drapery —a veil or, more probably, an end of the 
mantle drawn up over the head. A close parallel is furnished by the head, 
no. 30. The Hermes of Praxiteles affords several instances of such piecing 
of details. And two other heads, which have been claimed as originals 
from the hand of the same sculptor, may also be compared: the back of the 
Leconfield head is of a separate piece still securely attached (cf. Furt- 


[73 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


wangler, Masterpieces, p. 343); and the missing portion at the back of the 
Aberdeen head of Herakles was also probably added separately (ibdid., 
p. 347). The arrangement of the missing drapery cannot be inferred with 
certainty. But, according to Mr. Marshall, “the veil seems to have fallen 
closer to her left cheek than to her right, for the hair and neck behind the 
left ear are less finished. The heavy clamp on the right slope of the neck 
becomes intelligible if the drapery fell on the small piece it reattached. 
Lastly, the mantle seems to have projected over the brow, casting a 
shadow down to the eye-brows. Such a shadow, though not represented in 
these photographs, gives increased effectiveness to the modelling.” 

“The face is that of a modest girl, the soul of gentleness, radiant with 
quiet pleasure; a face less beautiful than lovely, diffusing unconsciously her 
happiness and youth around her.” (Marshall.) 

The head has been the subject of controversy. Several critics, while 
recognizing its Praxitelean character, have assigned it to the Hellenistic 
period because of the soft, impressionistic treatment of the surface; some 
have denied it any higher aesthetic quality than “prettiness and charm” ; 
one claims that the entire surface has been so rubbed down that any close 
study of the details is fruitless. This last statement is sufficiently disproved 
by the careful description of the surface quoted above. Its remarkable 
softness 1s due to the sculptor who made it, not to later reworking. A 
technical argument in favor of its attribution to the Alexandrian School 
has been advanced by Mr. Dickins. He held that the missing parts of the 
head were added in stucco, a common practice in Egypt which is illus- 
trated by the Ptolemaic portraits, nos. 57, 58, in this collection. But the 
known Alexandrian works which show this treatment are vastly inferior to 
the head from Chios. Moreover, the careful workmanship of the two 
planes on the sides of the skull and the dowel-holes in them do not suggest 
the application of stucco, but rather the careful adjustment of a piece of 
marble, and the working of the hair above the forehead is better explained 
as due to a clumsy repair, like the cutting for a clamp in the right shoulder. 

In his essay published in the Jahrbuch Mr. Marshall gives a different 
estimate of the head, showing its close relationship, in technique as well as 
style, to Praxitelean works, and concluding that it has some claims to be 
considered an original by the master. Its unusual force, a quality which 


[74] 


4 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 





had especially impressed Mr. Rodin, ‘“‘cannot,” he finds, “be explained as 
resulting from the subtle softness of the surface or from the expression 
given to the eye. .. . Here, the power results, in Mr. Rodin’s words, 
from the geometry. Not only in the several features is the modelling ap- 
proximated, so far as possible, to regular geometrica] forms, as in all sculp- 
ture or drawing which has style and force, but the whole face is conceived 
in a geometrical scheme so simple that it could almost be put in a formula. 
. . . This simple scheme underlies the modelling as the bones underlie the 
flesh. . . . The work has within it the stimulus which simple geometrical 


[75 J 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


forms convey to the senses, and a force which can permit much subtlety of 
modelling without any danger of resulting weakness.”’ 

“The artist is careful to preserve this geometry, even at the cost of 
much harshness. Take, for instance, the structure of the nose. At its 
spring, where in nature is a flat space (glabella), the cylindrical structure 
of the brow is not only preserved, but, in the ultimate modelling, the 
roundness is even heightened by a slight horizontal curve. This serves to 
modify the round of the brow before it is transmitted along the root and the 
ridge of the nose.’ The ridge is left much too broad throughout; the 
angles formed with it by the sides are impossibly sharp and the nostrils are 
enormous. In sacrificing anatomical correctness to geometric truth and 
force the sculptor does but continue the tradition of the fifth century, to 
which tradition he owes also the imaginative atmosphere of his work.” 

Comparing the head with several Praxitelean works —the Dresden 
Artemis and the Sauroktonos as illustrating his early style, the Knidian 
Aphrodite as belonging to his middle period, the Hermes and the Lecon- 
field Aphrodite as examples of his later period — Mr. Marshall finds that 
the particular type or geometrical scheme of the Chios head is the one used 
by Praxiteles, especially in his later works. 

In illustration of the Praxitelean quality of the execution attention may 
be called especially to the treatment of the mouth and of the eyes. To 
quote Mr. Marshall again: ‘In the Chios head the mouth is modelled in 
the fashion of the Hermes; the formation of the upper lip is precisely 
similar; the divisions of white from red are as clear in one as in the other. 
. . . They would not be more similar if the same artist had made both: 
and if the same artist did indeed make both, he was surely happier in his 
delineation of the girl’s, as, from the texts, we should expect Praxiteles 
to have been.” 

The eyes are carved in the impressionistic manner illustrated by the 
Hermes, as well as by the heads, nos. 27, 28, in this collection. But the 
manner of the Hermes is here pushed much further — “‘so far indeed that 
the lower lids are indicated by curves whose modelling rises by infinitesimal 
degrees from the height of a hair’s breadth to that of about a millimetre.” 


1 The brow of the colossal head, no. 27, shows the same treatment. See the diagram, p. 66, in 
which the contour of the brow of the Chios head is marked ‘“E.” 


[76 |] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 


The result is a wonderful softness and gentleness of expression, according 
to Mr. Marshall that quality which the ancients described by the term 
byporns, TOV 6padwav To bypov Gua TS Pardps kal kexapiovevw—an expression 
“soft, radiant, and pleasant.”’ 


30. Heap or A GODDESS 


Parian marble. Height, 0.45 m.; length of face, 0.21 m. 
Made separately for insertion in a statue. The neck ends in two oblique planes which meet at 
the bottom. Above and on both sides of the face the marble terminates in four planes with 





fairly smooth surfaces. The two upper planes meet at the top of the head, and form an obtuse 
angle with the lower pair above each temple. The back of the head was omitted, and the sur- 
face at the back is left rough. The lower lip and the hair above the left temple are slightly in- 
jured, and the surface has suffered from cleaning with acid. 

From Rhodes. 


Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1899. 
Inv. 99.341. Ann. Rep. 1899, p. 25, no. 4. 


This head belonged to a draped statue of heroic size. It is inclined 
slightly to the left; but beyond this nothing can be inferred as to the pose. 


Pig a 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


The working of the top, sides and back shows that the head was covered by 
some object which extended forward almost to the forehead. The contour 
of the face is a fairly broad oval. The forehead is high, triangular in shape, 
and modelled in a simple curve. Above it the hair is parted, and carried to 
the sides in wavy strands. The eyes are large, widely opened and set rather 
near together, with the lids clearly marked, but not heavy. The nose is 
long and straight, continuing the line of the brows, and the mouth is 
slightly drawn down at the corners; the chin is small. The neck is full 
and round, with two plainly marked horizontal creases. 

The object which covered the head may have been a piece of drapery or 
a helmet. In the latter case the head would represent Athena; and the 
character of the face, especially the intense gaze of the widely opened eyes, 
the high forehead and the full, broad cheeks, lends probability to this 
identification. 

Original Greek work, and to be dated about the middle of the fourth 
century B.C. 


31. Heap or a YouTH 

Pentelic marble. Height, 0.25 m.; length of face, 0.155 m. 

In two pieces, joined together. Missing, the upper part of the left side of the head, and the bridge 
of the nose. The right side of the face and neck is covered by a calcareous deposit. Golden- 
brown patina. 

Ellen Gray Fund, 1922. 

Inv. 22.613. M.F.A. Bulletin XXI, 1928, p. 74. 

The head, carved life-size in the round, is strongly inclined to the left, 
and the slightly lowered gaze is directed to that side. The youth has short, 
curly hair, sketchily worked above the forehead, and only roughly blocked 
out on the back of the head. His face is of an oval shape, narrowing to the 
small, but prominent chin. The lower part of the forehead swells out 
strongly in the centre; the arched brows meet the nose in gentle curves. 
The eyes, with lowered upper lids, are inclined downward. The mouth is 
small, and the lips are parted. The front of the chin is flattened, and has 
a slight depression, as in Praxitelean heads. The surface of the face, though 
modelled with great delicacy, lacks its final finish; marks of the tooled 
chisel are visible in many places. 

The inclination of the head and the treatment of eyes and mouth com- 
bine to give an expression of quiet reverie, such as is commonly found on 


[78 ] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 


the Attic grave reliefs of the fourth century. In details of style and tech- 
nique also it is related to the heads on these monuments. It is probably to 





be assigned to the comparatively rare class of commemorative statues in 
the round, of which the figure of a boy, no. 40, affords a more complete, 
though less fine example. 


32. HEAD OF A GIRL 


Pentelic marble. Height, 0.275 m.; length of face, 0.147 m. 

The bridge of the nose is missing, and there are some bruises on the forehead and chin. 
Acquired in Athens, whither it had been brought from Rhodes. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 

Inv. 01.8198. Ann. Rep. 1901, p. 36. 


The head, carved slightly under life-size, is turned somewhat towards 
the left shoulder, and looks in that direction. The face is a long and narrow 
oval; the nose is very prominent at its root, and meets the brows in a grad- 
ual curve; the eyes are not set deeply, and their openings are narrow; the 
lips are parted. Thick masses of hair are gathered up above the forehead 
in a loose knot, and upon them wavy strands are sketchily carved. A 
shallow groove for a fillet, which was probably rendered only by paint, is 


[79 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


chiselled around the crown. The hair on the top of the head and at the 
back, where it is worn short, is only roughly blocked out, with many 
marks of the drill showing. 

The work is to be included in a series of heads known as the “ Hygieia 
type,” a creation of the Attic school of the middle or second half of the 





fourth century s.c. (Cf. Koepp. Ath. Mitt. X, 1885, pp. 255 ff.) Among 
the examples of this type it resembles most closely the head in the Na- 
tional Museum at Athens, no. 190 (Brunn-Bruckmann, Denkmédler, pl. 
525, bottom), which was found in the sanctuary of Asklepios, and thus has 
some claim to the designation. The type occurs also on a number of Attic 
grave monuments, and it is possible, in spite of the statement as to its 
provenience, that this head may be a fragment of such a monument — 
either from a statue in the round or from a group executed in high relief. 


[ 80 ] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 


33. SMALL FEMALE HEAD 


Fine-grained Greek marble. Height, 0.165 m.; length of face, 0.11 m. 

Broken off at the top of the neck. Missing, the roll of hair at the back, and parts of the nose and 
chin. The surface is badly worn, and in places incrusted. 

From Greece. 

Gift of Mrs. Samuel Cabot, 1916. 

Inv. 16.45. Ann. Rep. 1916, p. 96. 


The head is characterised by the high, rounded outline of the skull and 
the long oval shape of the face. The hair is encircled by a fillet; below this 





it is drawn to the sides so as to cover the tips of the ears, and is done up in 
a roll behind; wavy locks are lightly chiselled on the top of the head, at 
either side of the parting which extends back to the crown. The forehead 
is prominent in the centre; the inner angles of the eyes are deeply set, and 
the eyelids definitely carved; the lips are slightly parted. 

Enough of the surface is preserved to show that the fragment is a Greek 
original of excellent workmanship, to be dated early in the fourth century 
B.C. 


[81] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


34. SMALL FEMALE HEAD 


Translucent Greek marble. Height, 0.113 m.; length of face, 0.055 m. 

Broken from a statuette. The tip of the nose is missing, and the chin is slightly injured. A thick, 
ochre-colored incrustation remains on the right side. 

From Greece. 

Given in memory of Miss Mary Conway Felton, 1899. 

Inv. 99.122. Ann. Rep. 1899, p. 27, no. 5. M.F.A. Bulletin VI, 1908, p. 23. 


The head is inclined slightly toward the right shoulder. The long oval 
form of the face is emphasised by the coiffure, the hair being carried up 





from the forehead to a knot upon the top of the head, asin the head of the 
‘ Hygieia type”’ (cf. no. 28). The delicately modelled features, however, 
are not derived from this type. Praxitelean influence is evident in the ren- 
dering of the eyes and of the hair, the surface of which is left rough in con- 
trast to the carefully finished flesh parts. 

Attic work of the late fourth century B.c. 


[ 82 ] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 


35. SMALL FEMALE HEAD 


Fine-grained Greek marble. Height, 0.118 m. 

Broken off at the base of the neck; the tip of the nose and the hair on the right side are slightly 
injured. 

From Gortyna, Crete. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1900. 

Inv. 00.808. Ann. Rep. 1900, p. 27, no. 4. 


The head is of a long, oval shape, with a remarkably high skull. A fillet 
is wound four times around the hair which grows low on the forehead, and 





is drawn in wavy locks from the central parting to the sides, covering the 
tips of the ears. On the crown a small knot escapes from the encircling 
fillet. The features are regular, and delicately modelled. 

Greek work of the fourth century B.c. 


26. SraTuETTe or APHRODITE RIDING ON A GOOSE 


Pentelic marble. Height, 0.675 m. 

Missing, the head of the goose, the end of the left wing and most of the right wing, the right hand 
of the goddess, the front of her left foot, the edges of the himation on the right side, and part 
of the base. Injured, the nose and chin of the goddess, the fingers of her left hand and the edge 
of the himation on the left side. The group, like no. 22, was at some time used as a fountain: 
a large cavity was made in the base, and from this a hole was drilled through the bird’s neck; 
the upper part of the neck and the head were restored in bronze, and attached by means of 


[83 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


a dowel, the hole for which is visible in the break. The missing part of the left foot of the 
goddess was also restored, probably at the time of the second use. 

Said to have been found near Porta San Pancrazio, Rome. Formerly in the Somsée collection. 

Francis Bartlett Collection, 1903. 

Inv. 03.752. Ann. Rep. 1903, p. 58, no. 9. Brunn-Bruckmann, Denkmédiler, pl. 577, 4 figs., with 
comment by Furtwangler. Reinach, Répertoire II, p. 687, 1. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculp- 
ture, p. 96, fig. 112. 


The goddess is lightly seated on the back of the goose. With her left 
hand she clasps the bird’s neck; her right hand is raised, holding out her 





mantle; her feet are crossed. The goose is to be imagined as flying upward 
to the right. Its wings are spread, the right placed horizontally, the left 
raised obliquely. Its legs are not indicated: they are hidden in the rounded 
mass of marble which serves as a base, and which, as Furtwangler has sug- 
gested, was probably painted blue to represent the air, like the similar 
mass under the eagle supporting the Nike of Paeonios. The goddess 


[ 84 ] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 


wears a short-sleeved chiton girded by a cord just below the breast, and 
held up under the arms by another cord passing over her shoulders and 
crossed at the back. A voluminous himation covers her legs and her left 
arm, and is drawn up over her head. Her hair is arranged in a series of 
wavy locks rising vertically above the forehead. 

The group was designed to be seen from the point of view shown in the 
illustration. The back and sides are only sketchily worked. The details of 
the wings were left to be indicated by paint. 

This is the only extant version in sculpture in the round of a subject 
represented by numerous terra-cotta statuettes from the fifth century on- 
wards, as well as by vase paintings, repoussé reliefs, etc.!. The most famous 
of these is the painting on a white-ground kylix of about 450 B.c. in the 
British Museum (Catalogue, D, 2; White Athenian Vases, pl. 15). Aphro- 
dite, identified by an inscription, is there shown borne through the air on 
the back of a goose, which, as in the present example, is represented as dis- 
proportionately large. In some other versions the bird is a swan. The 
group has a religious significance: the goddess, wafted towards the land on 
the back of a water bird, symbolises, according to Furtwangler’s interpre- 
tation, the return of spring, the season of warmth and fertility. 

The sculptor has used this motive to create a composition which is well 
balanced and full of life and motion. The attitude of the bird’s body sug- 
gests upward flight; Aphrodite’s mantle is bellied out by the wind like a 
sail, and its lower portion is blown against her legs as if by a breeze coming 
from below. On the evidence of the drapery Furtwangler assigned the 
work to the Attic school of the middle of the fourth century B.c. He also 
noted, however, the close likeness which the head bears to that of the 
Themis of Rhamnous, a statue by a local sculptor, Chairestratos, erected 
early in the third century (Athens, National Museum, 231; ’E¢. ’Apx. 1891, 
pl. 4). A certain resemblance is also to be recognised in the treatment of 
the garments — the high girding, the cords passing under the arms, the 
conspicuous use of the drill to hollow out the smaller folds. But the exe- 
cution of the drapery on the larger statue is harder and more mechanical. 

Furtwingler supposed that the work, which later came to decorate a 
Roman fountain, was originally set up as a votive offering in a Greek 

1 A list is given by Furtwangler, l. c. Cf. also Kalkmann, Jahrbuch I, 1886, pp. 231 ff. 


[ 85 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


sanctuary, possibly that of Nemesis at Rhamnous. It is also possible to 
imagine it as having served as an akroterion on a small temple, like the 
figures of Breezes (aurae velificantes se) mounted on horseback, which 
Timotheos made as akroteria for the temple of Asklepios at Epidauros 
(Athens, National Museum, 156, 157; Lechat, Epidaure, pp. 74, 75). 


37. STATUETTE OF A STANDING WoMAN 


Greek marble. Height, 0.51 m., excluding plinth. 

Missing, the left hand, the front of the right foot. The head has been broken off and refastened, 
with restoration of part of the neck. The remains of the plinth 
are imbedded in a modern stone base. The surface, especially 
that of the head, is corroded, and covered with a reddish- 
brown patina. 

From Southern Italy. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1900. 

Inv. 00.305. Ann. Rep. 1900, p. 26, no. 2. 


The woman stands with her weight on the left 
leg, the right knee being slightly bent. She looks 
downward and to her left. Her left arm hangs at 
her side, and probably carried some object in the 
hand. Her right arm is held across her body just 
below the breast, and catches lightly the folds of 
her mantle. The proportions of the figure are 
slender, and the head is small. The hair is car- 
ried up to a knot on the crown. She wears a 
thin, sleeveless chiton, a himation, and shoes. 
The himation envelops the greater part of the 
figure, passing under the right arm and over the 
left shoulder, from which one end of it falls down 
the front of the body. The chiton is visible only 
on the right breast, where it has slipped down so as to leave the shoulder 
bare, and about the feet, where it hangs in numerous small folds. The 
back is rather flat, and less carefully finished than the front. 

Greek work, probably of the late fourth century B.c. 





[ 86 ] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 


38. ARM AND HAnNpD Ho.LpInG A KANTHAROS 


Pentelic marble. Length, 0.46 m.; without kantharos, 0.31 m. 

The arm was made separately and attached; the joint is worked smooth, and contains a dowel 
hole 3 cm. wide, 1 cm. thick, and 5 cm. deep. A fragment of the inner side of the arm has 
been broken off and refastened. The kantharos has also been refastened: one side of it is miss- 
ing. Yellow brown patina. 

From Athens. 

Francis Bartlett Collection, 1903. 

Inv. 03.763. Ann. Rep. 1903, p. 56, no. 2. 


A woman’s extended right forearm and hand, holding a kantharos. 
The fingers are long and slender, and turned up at the tips. The surface 





of the arm and hand is carefully smoothed, the modelling not very detailed. 
Marks of a toothed chisel are left on the surface of the kantharos. 

The fragment is apparently of Greek workmanship, but its date is un- 
certain. Robinson (Report) held it to be from an archaic figure. According 
to another view it belongs to the Hellenistic period. Its inclusion here 
among works of the fourth century is to be regarded as provisional. 


39. HEAD or A RAM 


Pentelic marble. Height, 0.23 m. 

Broken from a statue. The ears and the ends of the horns are missing, and have been incorrectly 
restored in marble. The ears, which have been made too large, should lie back against the 
horns with the opening to the front. The traces on the left horn, explained by Matz-Duhn as 
the fingers of a man, were probably the remains of the attachment of the ear; they have since 
been worked off. The horns should lie close to the sides of the head, as is shown by the re- 
working of the fleece there. The eyelids have been patched with plaster. The eyes were in- 
serted. 


Sri 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


Found near Acqua Traversa. Formerly in Palazzo Corvisieri, Rome. 
Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 
Inv. 01.8194. Matz-Duhn, Antike Bildwerke in Rom, I, p. 465, no. 1633. 

The head is apparently from a statue of a ram. It is thus not to be 
classed with the series of ram’s heads of the archaic period which decorated 
the simas of Doric temples, e. g. the head from the Peisistratid temple at 
Eleusis (Richardson, A. J. A. II, 1898, p. 223, pl. vir), two fragmentary 











heads from the Peisistratid temple of Athena on the Acropolis at Athens 
(Wiegand, Die archaische Porosarchitektur, p. 125, figs. 121 a, b), a head 
now used as a water spout in the monastery of Kaisariani at the foot of 
Mt. Hymettus (ibid. fig. 122). These works are executed in a distinctly 
more archaic style. On the finest of them, the head from Eleusis, the 
fleece is rendered schematically as a series of snail-shell curls; the striations 
of the horns are more regularly and definitely carved; the eyes are flatter, 
and look to the sides rather than to the front; the prolongation of the tear- 
duct is more sharply incised; the nose is broader and more swelling. In the 
present example, on the other hand, though the fleece is represented with 
more fidelity to nature, the modelling of the face is not so far advanced 


[ 88 ] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 


towards realism as in such late works as the famous bronze ram in Palermo 
(Heydemann, Arch. Zeitung, 1870, p. 1, pl. 25; De Mot, Bulletin des 
Musées Royaux a Brucelles, II, 1902, p. 5) or the black marble head of a 
fat-tailed sheep in the Uffizi Palace, Florence (Amelung, Fuhrer durch die 
Antiken in Florenz, no. 129, p. 86; Arndt-Amelung, Hinzelaufnahmen, no. 
374). The head may therefore belong to the second half of the fifth or to 
the fourth century B.c. 


40. STATUE OF AN AMAZON ON HORSEBACK 


Pentelic marble. Length of the horse’s body, 0.91 m. 

Missing, the body of the rider down to the hips, and the lower parts of both her legs; the head, 
neck, legs and tail of the horse; the whole of the fallen opponent except the left upper arm and 
hand. The left foreleg and the tail of the horse were made separately and attached. On the 
horse’s belly a space about 7 cm. in diameter has been reworked. In the crupper of the horse, 
on the left side, is a hole about 3 cm. square, partially filled with lead. Another hole, 5 cm. 
square, 6.5 cm. deep, is cut obliquely into the rider’s left thigh and the adjoining shoulder 
of the horse. Across the palm of the Amazon’s left hand are the remains of the two cylindrical 
holes which held the ends of the bronze reins. Two holes in the front of the endromis on her 
right leg were for the insertion of bronze ornaments. On the right side the lower edge of the 
Amazon’s chiton is injured, and its surface is somewhat corroded. 

Found in the vicinity of Rome. 

Francis Bartlett Collection, 1903. 

Inv. 03.751. Ann. Rep. 1903, p. 57, no. 5. Von Mach, Greek and Roman Sculpture, pl. 248. 
Reinach, Gazette des beaux arts, 1909, I, pp. 195, 200. Amelung, Ausonia III, 1909, p. 97, 
figs. 5,6. Brunn-Bruckmann-Arndt, Denkmdler griechischer und rémischer Skulptur, pl. 674, 
with discussion by Caskey. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 94, fig. 109. 


This is a fragment from a pedimental group representing the familiar 
combat of the Greeks with the Amazons. The rider wears the character- 
istic costume of the Amazons — a short chiton, high boots (endromides) 
and a chlamys, one end of which is visible on her left side. She bestrides a 
rearing horse, beneath which was the figure of a fallen opponent, carved in 
the same block of marble. Of the latter nothing is preserved except the 
left forearm, wrapped in the folds of a mantle, and held up against the left 
side of the horse’s body. The pose of this figure was doubtless similar to 
that of the fallen warrior on metope XIII on the west fagade of the Parthe- 
non. That is, he was resting on his right side, facing to the left, with his 
left leg drawn up (cf. Ebersole, A. J. A. III, 1893, p. 424, fig. 13). In the 
present case the left arm was raised higher, and the left knee was probably 
drawn up so as to touch the belly of the horse, which would account for 


[ 89 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


the reworking of the surface there. Such a figure, placed entirely beneath 
the horse and facing to the left, can have played no important part in the 
action; it served the double function of filling a vacant space, and supply- 
ing a necessary support for the boldly conceived group. The Amazon is to 
be imagined as raising her spear, or battle-axe, to attack a second adver- 
sary advancing against her on foot; and the front of the horse is turned 





slightly to the left in order to give space for this figure. The group is thus 
seen to have formed a part of an extended battle-scene which in all proba- 
bility decorated the pediment of a Doric temple. There is evidence to 
prove that it was designed to be seen only from the right side. The left 
hand and the bronze reins which it held were shown on the right side of the 
neck of the horse; the bronze ornaments decorating the endromis on the 
right leg were omitted on the left leg; and the right side shows more weath- 
ering than the other. Moreover, the right side of the group is distinctly su- 
perior both as regards design and execution: it is treated like a work in the 


[90 ] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 


round, whereas the left side is flattened into one plane; the Amazon’s left 
leg is weakly conceived; the drapery folds and the muscles of the horse on 
the left side are less carefully carved. Finally, if further proof were re- 
quired, it is furnished by the two holes in the left side, which can only have 
been made to contain the ends of metal bars connecting the statue with 
the tympanum wall. 

The composition resembles that of the well-known mounted Amazon 
from the west pediment of the temple of Asklepios at Epidauros (Athens, 
National Museum, 137). Amelung has even suggested that the present 
fragment may have come from the same pediment. But this is disproved 
by its greater dimensions: the horse’s body is 21 cm. longer than that in 
Athens. The group, when complete, was too large even for the centre of 
the pediment, a position which was, moreover, certainly occupied by the 
Amazon found at Epidauros. 

There are also clear differences in style between the two works. The 
sculptures of the Epidaurian pediments were executed after models by 
Timotheos, who himself made the akroteria on the temple, and who is also 
known to have worked on the decoration of the Mausoleum. The original 
of the statues of Leda of the Capitoline type has been attributed to him on 
good grounds. And a female torso in Copenhagen, which may also have 
been an akroterion, has been held to be an original from his hand (Brunn- 
Bruckmann-Arndt, Denkmdler, pls. 664, 665, with discussion by Lippold). 
These works show that Timotheos was fond of rendering the feminine form 
in animated and graceful poses, partly nude or covered by clinging dra- 
peries. The Epidaurian Amazon is admirable less for the representation of 
vigorous action than for the easy grace of her attitude, as she raises herself 
to poise her weapon above her head. The Amazon in Boston sits more 
firmly, and grips the flank of her horse with her bent knee. The horse is of 
a more massive build; and the swelling muscles of his hindquarter heighten 
the dramatic force of the action. The lower folds of the chiton are more 
deeply carved; a portion of it is blown up from the thigh; and the flaps of 
the endromis fly out behind. The contrast between the two works is, in 
fact, similar to that which has been noted above between the Boston Leda 
(no. 19) and the Timothean rendering of the same subject. 

Though from the hand of a different sculptor, the statue is also to be 


[91 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


assigned to the first half of the fourth century s.c. Speculation as to the 
building it was made to adorn is fruitless: all that can be said is that it 
comes from a temple of somewhat larger dimensions than that of Asklepios 
at Epidauros. 


41. STaTuE oF A Boy 


Pentelic marble. Height, 0.735 m. 

Missing, the right arm from just above the elbow, the left hand, and both legs from the upper 
parts of the thighs. A crack runs across the chest and the left arm. The nose is slightly injured. 
The surface of the marble, which is of inferior quality with bluish streaks, is partly covered 
by a golden brown patina. 

From Athens. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1904. 

Inv. 04.283. Ann. Rep. 1904, p. 55, no. 6. Butler, The Story of Athens, p. 345. Warrack, Greek 
Sculpture, pl. 43. Bulle, Der schéne Mensch,’ pl. 58, p. 111. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, 
p. 95, fig. 111. 

The nude figure stands in an easy graceful pose with the weight borne 
on the left leg. The body is that of a boy of about fourteen years of age, 
broad and deep-chested, with the pectoral muscles and the lower outline 
of the abdomen clearly marked, but not of an especially athletic type. The 
median line forms a pronounced curve. His right shoulder is raised, and 
the arm, which was bent at the elbow, is swung out from the body; his left 
arm hangs at his side. His head is inclined and turned to the right, and his 
eyes look in that direction with a fixed, dreamy gaze. The two sides of the 
face are strongly asymmetrical: the right cheek is wider, and recedes more 
rapidly from the nose. This irregularity, however, is not apparent when 
the body is seen from directly in front with the head in three-quarter pro- 
file, showing that the figure was designed for that point of view. 

The statue was probably set up as a monument over a tomb. Appar- 
ently it stood free, rather than in a niche; for the back of the body is as 
carefully worked as the front, except that some marks of the toothed chisel 
have been left on the surface. 

Attic grave monuments of the fourth century B.c. vary widely in merit: 
many are the work of mere stone-cutters, and few are to be assigned to 
sculptors of the first rank. The present example is to be rated above the 
average; it is interesting, besides, as belonging to the comparatively rare 
class of commemorative figures in the round. The mood of quiet reverie, 


[ 92 ] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 





slightly tinged with melancholy, which is expressed by the relaxed pose, 
the far-away gaze of the eyes and the parted lips, is characteristic of these 
monuments. So is also the hasty and rather careless technique of the head. 
The inequality of the two sides of the face, a peculiarity already noted in 
the heads of Demeter (no. 24) and Aphrodite (no. 25), which were designed 
for a three-quarter view, is here unduly exaggerated, as often on the 
grave reliefs (cf. the head no. 39). The short locks of hair above the fore- 
head are sketchily indicated, and on the top and back of the head the hair 
is only roughly blocked out. The soft rendering of the surface of the flesh 
and the S-curve of the median line reveal the influence of Praxiteles, and 
point to a date for the statue in the latter half of the fourth century B.c. 


[93 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


42. FIGURE OF A WOMAN, IN HIGH RELIEF 


Pentelic marble. Height, without plinth, 2.01 m. 

At the left side are traces of the background of the relief, which was 9 cm. thick. The missing right 
forearm was made separately, as is shown by the working of the joint at the elbow: it has a 
large mortise for a tenon. The arm was further fastened to the body by a dowel which was 
leaded by means of a pour-channel leading from one of the folds of the drapery. The nose 
is restored in plaster, and the right foot, with a part of 
the plinth, in marble. The lips have been filed down, and 
many of the broken edges of the drapery folds have been 
smoothed off. The surface is much worn. 

From Rome. Once in the possession of Castellani. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1898. 

Inv. 98.642. Ann. Rep. 1898, p. 21, no. 2. Reinach, Gazette 
des beaux arts, 1912, VII, p. 69. Chase, Greek and Roman 
Sculpture, p. 103, fig. 124. 


The woman stands with her head in profile 
to the right, looking downward, while her body 
is turned slightly towards the spectator. Her 
weight is supported on her left leg; her right leg 
is relaxed, and turned so that the foot appears 
in front view. She is clothed in a chiton, himat- 
ion, and sandals. The mantle reaches to her 
ankles and is drawn up over the back of her 
head; it covers the upper part of her right 
arm, passes around the front of her body, and 
its end is thrown over her left arm. Her right 
forearm was held obliquely, in front of her; her 
left hand is raised, holding the edge of the 
mantle. Her hair is arranged in parallel rows 
of wavy locks. 





This is a part of an Attic grave monument 
of the fourth century. The figure, which is of 
unusually large size, was doubtless inclosed in an architectural framework; 
whether it stood alone, or belonged to a group, cannot be determined, 
though the former alternative seems the more probable. The quiet dignity 
of the pose, and the graceful arrangement of the drapery are still impres- 
sive; but the barbarous reworking to which the surface has been subjected 
makes it difficult to estimate the original quality of the execution. 


[94 ] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 


43. Heap or A WoMAN 


Pentelic marble. Height, 0.265 m. 
Missing, the lower part of the nose. The right eyebrow and the hair on the right side are slightly 


damaged. On the right side of the face are the traces of two finger tips. A brown earthy 
deposit, which remains on the left side, has been removed from the right, but without injury to 
the surface. 

Found near Keratea, in Attica. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 

Inv. 01.8192. Ann. Rep. 1901, p. 36. Wolters, Miinchner Jahrbuch, 1911, p. 184, fig. 5. Hekler, 
Greek and Roman Portraits, pl. 49, b. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 108, fig. 125. 
This head, though worked fully in the round, is evidently a fragment 

from a large Attic grave monument containing a group of figures executed 

for the most part in high relief. The more careful workmanship of the hair 
and the more detailed modelling of the face on the right side show that the 
head was designed to be seen mainly from the right. The face, too, like 
that of the boy, no. 41, is asymmetrical, the left cheek being much wider 
and flatter, the right cheek-bone more prominent. This irregularity is not 
noticeable when the head is seen, as in the photograph, in three-quarter 
view to the right, but is disturbing when it is turned to the left. The re- 
mains of two finger tips on the right side of the face show that the woman 
was raising her hand to her cheek in a gesture expressive of grief. Ap- 
parently she was one of the family of the deceased, standing at the left of 
the principal figure, perhaps in the attitude of the left-hand figure in the 
relief, no. 819, in Athens (Conze, Die attischen Grabreliefs, I, 306, pl. 

LXxuI), which illustrates also the motive of the hand raised to the cheek. 
The hair above the forehead is arranged in an irregular series of thick 

curls carefully worked in detail; on the crown, and at the back, where it 

is gathered up in a small roll, the surface is more sketchily carved. The 
type of the face is matronly; and there is a distinct suggestion of approach- 
ing old age in the looseness of the flesh about the chin, the folds at either 
side of the nose and mouth, the wrinkles in the cheek and under the right 
eye. The intense gaze of the eyes, the contracted brows, and the patheti- 
cally curled lips also give the head a stronger expression of grief than is 
common in contemporary works of its class. 

With regard to the age at which the woman is represented, Wolters has 
remarked that while old men occur not infrequently on Attic grave reliefs, 


[95 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


the women on these monuments are almost invariably portrayed as ideally 
youthful. Aside from the present head he was able to cite only three ex- 
ceptions: the head on the relief no. 966 in Athens (Conze, op. cit. II, 804, 
pl. ctr), which furnishes the closest parallel to it; a head in Munich show- 





ing marks of age about the chin and neck, rather unskillfully superadded 
upon an otherwise youthful type (illustrated in his article); the head of an 
elderly woman on a relief in Athens (Conze, op. cit. II, 861, pl. cuxrv). To 
these may now be added the head of a woman on an Attic grave monument 
in the University Museum, Philadelphia (The Museum Journal, VIII, 
LOU LOs oa \s 


[96] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 





44. STATUETTE OF A WEEPING SIREN 


Pentelic marble. Height, 0.367 m. 

Missing, the greater portions of the arms, wings and tail, and the legs below the knees. The right 
wing was broken off in antiquity, and refastened by means of two large iron dowels which are 
stillin place. The broken edge of the left wing and a small portion of the body at the back have 
been worked down in modern times, apparently in order to fit the figure to a background; and 
there is a modern drill hole in the back of the neck. 

Francis Bartlett Collection, 1903. 

Inv. 03.757. Ann. Rep. 1903, p. 57, no. 6. Collignon, Les statues funéraires, p. 222, fig. 144. 


The siren stands with her wings outspread and her left leg slightly ad- 
vanced. Her head is inclined to its left; her right hand is raised, clutching 
her hair, the ends of which fall loosely on her shoulders; her left hand is 
pressed to her breast. The pose of the hands expresses violent grief; and 
this is brought out even more strongly in the face, with its contracted 


[97 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


brows and puckered lips. The surface of the body is modelled with great 
delicacy. Slight chisel marks, left on the thighs, suggest feathers, and help 
to form a transition to the bird’s legs which begin at the knees. 

Figures of sirens occur frequently among the Attic grave monuments 
of the fourth century. By this time their original significance as souls of the 
dead, has been lost, and they have become friendly demons, represented as 
playing the lyre, or joining in the lament for the deceased (ef. Collignon, 
op. cit. pp. 76 ff., 216 ff., and Weicker, Der Seelenvogel). They appear carved 
in relief in the pediment of a stele (Collignon, op. cit. fig. 141) or, as here, in 
the form of statuettes which probably stood as akroteria on larger monu- 
ments; in a few instances they served as the monument itself (bad. figs. 
138-140). The present example resembles most closely a figure in the 
Louvre (2bid. fig. 143), which differs however in the arrangement of the 
wings, and is less finely executed. 


45. AKROTERION OF A GRAVE STELE 


Pentelic marble. Height, 0.66 m. . 


Missing, large portions of the acanthus leaves and of-the volutes, and the tips of many leaves of 
the palmettes. A small fragment from the upper row of acanthus leaves has been replaced in 
its original position with the help of connecting bars of plaster. In the bottom there is a large 
rectangular dowel-hole for attachment to the shaft. 


Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1904. 
Inv. 04.17. Ann. Rep. 1904, p. 55, no. 4. Catalogue of Casts, supplement, no. 479a. 


Both faces of the akroterion are alike, consisting of a large palmette 
—in distinct halves, each composed of six leaves — springing from 
acanthus leaves ranged in two rows. Two fluted stalks rise from the upper 
row of acanthus, and each develops upward into one of the half palmettes, 
and outward into a spiral tendril, the points of transition being concealed 
by small acanthus leaves. The space at the top of each face between the 
halves of the palmette is filled by a lily, and the space at each side be- 
tween the front and rear palmettes is covered with a row of three leaves of 
acanthus in low relief, laid flat and overlapping. 

The akroterion is an example of one of the simpler forms of grave monu- 
ments erected in Athenian cemeteries in the fourth century B.c. It sur- 
mounted a tall, slender shaft inscribed with the name of the deceased, but 


[98 ] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 





otherwise probably undecorated except for a pair of rosettes carved in low 
relief near the top. 

The crowning members of such stelae vary widely in details, but the 
majority of them are composed according to the same general scheme. 
Two of the elements — the palm leaf and the spiral tendrils — are de- 
scendants of the conventionalised palmettes and volutes of archaic Greek 
ornament, transformed by the naturalising spirit of the fourth century, 
and combined with new motives, like the fluted stalks and the acanthus, 
which were directly inspired by forms of plant life. 

A large number of these akroteria are published by Conze, Dve at- 
tischen Grabreliefs, nos. 1530 ff. The present example belongs to his class A 
(nos. 1530-1562), and resembles most closely no. 1538, pl. cccxxr. It is 
apparently unique in having both its faces sculptured. For an example of 


[99 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 





the archaic prototype compare the stele, no. 13, and, for a further develop- 
ment of the acanthus motive, the relief, no. 49. On the derivation of this 
type of ornament from actual plant forms see Meurer, Das griechische 
Akanthusornament und seine natiirlichen Vorbilder, Jahrbuch, XI, 1896, 
pp. 117 ff. 

A plaster cast of the akroterion with the missing portions restored is 
shown in the Court of Classical Casts. See the illustration above. 


46. PAINTED GRAVE STELE 


Soft, white limestone. Height, 0.505 m.; width at bottom, 0.365 m. 

The frame of the panel and the akroteria are slightly damaged. The surface is somewhat defaced 
by dirt and scratches, and the unpainted portions are covered by a brown, earthy deposit. 

From Greece. Said to have been found in Boeotia. 

Catharine Page Perkins Collection, 1896. 

Inv. 96.701. Ann. Rep. 1896, p. 24, no. 1. 


The front of the slab has a sunken panel surrounded by narrow, bev- 
elled margins at the sides and top and a broader one at the bottom. The 
sides are inclined, and the top is in the form of a low gable surmounted by 
three small akroteria. On the surface of the panel is a painted design which 
has been described by Robinson in the Annual Report as follows: ‘It rep- 
resents a woman seated upon what is apparently a chair without a back, 
in profile, facing towards the left, playing with a white bird (dove?) which 


[ 100 ] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 


is perched upon the forefinger of her left hand, its head stretched up to- 
wards a small red object (fruit?) which she holds in her right hand. She is 
dressed in a plum-colored chiton, with long, tight-fitting sleeves, and over 
this is a shorter garment of light yellowish green, made with sleeves which 
just cover the shoulders, open in front, and girdled high at the waist. She 
wears yellow shoes; and her hair is 
short, dark brown and curly. Her 
face is painted the fair flesh-color 
which we see on figures of women 
in wall paintings, the lips, cheek, 
and setting of the eye being deeper 
in shade. The background is pale 
blue. Across the top a horizontal 
band is painted, separating the 
pediment from the picture. From 
this band hang three objects, which 
are nearly obliterated. That on the 
right may be a pouch or purse; the 
middle one is a small, reddish disk, 
with traces of drawing around it; 
and of that on the left nothing is 
left but a mass of bright red, the 
drawing which would determine its nature having entirely disappeared. 
In front of the woman, at the lower left corner of the picture, is possibly a 
black dado, with a colored border at the top, but this is not continued 
under the seat, the color there being like the rest of the background. There 
are also traces of drawing here, but I can make nothing of them. The bev- 





elled sides and top of the frame are painted a strong red. Along the bottom 
are traces of pigment, among which various colors are faintly discernible. 

“The colors are applied directly to the stone, without any preparatory 
coating. The outlines and other details are drawn in a dark grayish color, 
possibly originally black. The figure is poorly drawn, and badly propor- 
tioned, but the type is that of the figures on the Attic grave reliefs of the 
end of the fifth and beginning of the fourth centuries B.c. The slab is 
certainly not older than that period, but it may be later.” 


[ 101 J 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


47. Votive RELIEF TO HERAKLES ALEXIKAKOS 


Pentelic marble. Height, 0.53 m.; width, 0.696 m. 

The edges of the slab are smoothed; the back is roughly worked, with a rebate at the bottom. 
The upper right-hand corner is broken off, and the crowning moulding is chipped in several 

F eae Piraeus. 

Catharine Page Perkins Collection, 1896. 

Inv. 96.696. Ann. Rep. 1896, p. 23, no. 5. M.F.A. Bulletin VIII, 1910, p. 27. Wheeler, A.J.A. 
VIL, 1903, p. 85. Von Mach, Greek and Roman Sculpture, pl. 183. Frickenhaus, Ath. Mitt. 
XXVI, 1911, pp. 121 ff., pl. mu. Harrison, Themis, p. 378, fig. 104. Reinach, Répertoure des 
reliefs, II, p. 201. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 99, fig. 117. 

The relief is surmounted by a simple moulding, and terminates below 
in a flat, projecting band which serves as a base for the figures. Herakles, 
represented as a nude, beardless youth, stands in the centre almost in full 
front view, his weight supported by his left leg. His right arm is extended 
across his body, and the hand points to the shrine beside him. A lion’s 
skin hangs from his left arm, and his left hand holds a club; its end, which 
has been chiselled off, rested on the floor of the shrine. Two unfluted Doric 
columns set upon a base of three steps, and supporting an architrave with 
a projecting taenia at the top, represent the shrine. A large vase, resembling 
a kantharos, stands upon the architrave. The top step of the base bears the 
inscription: We an ae showing that the relief was dedicated to Her- 
akles as the Averter of Evil. At the left is a second youthful figure, 
standing in profile to the right, gazing at Herakles. He is nude, save for a 
chlamys and a petasos hanging at his back. His left leg is advanced 
slightly; his right arm hangs at his side; his left hand seems to have held 
some object which was not rendered plastically, but was left to be added in 
paint. This figure is probably to be identified as Hermes, who was often 
associated with Herakles as a god of the palaestra. A fragmentary relief in 
the Acropolis Museum at Athens shows a figure in almost exactly the same 
pose; and it has been suggested by Schoene, Griechische Reliefs, p. 69, 
that the left hand held a purse, an attribute often given to Hermes in 
Graeco-Roman representations. But Sieveking (in the text to Arndt- 
Amelung, Hinzelaufnahmen, no. 1284, where the fragment is reproduced) 
denies that it is a purse. On both reliefs it may have been the kerykeion 
or herald’s staff of Hermes. The structure at the right, because of its small 
size and the presence of the wine cup, has the appearance of an altar; it is, 


[ 102 ] 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 


however, certainly a shrine, or heroon, as is proved by its occurrence on 
several other votive reliefs to Herakles as well as in vase paintings (a list 
is given by Frickenhaus) in which the hero is shown standing beside it as 
here, or seated on its steps, or seated on it. 

As has been pointed out by Wheeler, the relief was evidently dedicated 
by an Athenian ephebe in commemoration of a ceremony called oivornpia, 





which Hesychius explains as follows: ’A@jvnou of wéddovTes ébnBeberv, mplv 
arokelpacbat Tov wadddr, elopepovow ‘Hpaxdel pérpov oivov, kal omeloavres ToLs 
auvehbovowv éredidovy rive: 7 b€ orovdn éxadelTo oiviathpia. —‘‘ At Athens 
those who were about to become ephebes; before they cut off the lock of 
hair, brought a measure of wine as an offering to Herakles, and after they 
had poured a libation, gave it to their companions to drink; and this liba- 
tion was called oinisteria.”” On the relief the god is represented as receiv- 
ing this offering which is indicated by the wine cup on the shrine. 

Between the two figures are faint vestiges of a painted inscription in 
which the name Herakles has been thought to be distinguishable. 


[ 103 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


The letter forms of the incised inscription suggest a date early in the 
fourth century B.c., which is borne out by the style of the sculpture. The 
modelling of the two figures is sketchy but effective; their attitudes, as 
well as the quiet, intense gaze of the Hermes, reveal the strong influence 
which the Parthenon frieze exercised upon the minor Attic sculptors of the 
succeeding generation. 


48. FRAGMENT OF A VOTIVE RELIEF 


Pentelic marble. Height, 0.128 m.; width, 0.25 m. 

Broken below and at the right edge. Injured at the upper left-hand corner. The back is left rough. 
From Athens. 

Anonymous gift, 1918. 

Inv. 18.486. Ann. Rep. 1918, p. 87. 


The relief was framed in at the sides by simple pilasters and at the top 
by a projecting band 0.037 m. high, representing a roof. The central por- 





tion is slightly raised; above it, the ends of rows of cover-tiles are indicated 
in low relief. 

At the left is the upper part of the figure of a bearded god, standing with 
his body almost in front view, his head in profile. A himation covers his 
left shoulder. At the right, the head and raised left hand of a bearded man, 
presumably the first of a group of worshippers. 

In the absence of an inscription, the divinity cannot be identified with 
certainty. The fragment is, however, probably from one of the numerous 
votive reliefs to Asklepios which have been found in Athens, dating from 
the fourth century B.c. downwards. The execution is rude. 


[ 104 J 


FOURTH CENTURY B.C. 


49. Part oF A DECORATIVE RELIEF 


Chalk. Height, 0.565 m. 

In three fragments, A and B, joined together, are 0.565 m. high, 0.51 m. wide, 0.11 m. thick. 
Broken at both sides; portions of the original upper and lower surfaces are preserved. Cisa 
small fragment, measuring 0.135 X 0.14 m. Some details of the design are broken, and the 
surface is worn. 

From Ceglie, near Bari. 

Purchased from the James Fund, and by special contribution, 1910. 

Inv. 10.160. Ann. Rep. 1910, p. 59. M. F. A. Bulletin, IX, 1911, p. 51. Petersen, Ara Pacis 
Augustae, I, p. 163, fig. 53. 


The slight inclination of the upper edge of the slab and the composition 
of the floral design suggest that this relief may have formed the decoration 





4 


of asmall pediment. Part of the central motive appears at the left. Itisa 
large plant, rising from acanthus leaves. Three thick, fluted stalks spread 
over the field to the right; from them issue leaves, flowers, and spirally 
curled tendrils. On one of the latter a figure of Eros is lightly seated, with 
his long wings spread out against the background. He looks around 
towards a small animal, perhaps a griffin, which emerges from the foliage 
at the right. 


[ 105 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


In its naturalistic treatment of the acanthus and other plant forms this 
relief recalls the decoration of Attic grave stelae (cf. no. 45), Corinthian 
capitals and the simae from Greek buildings of the fourth century B.c. 
(e. g. the Tholos at Epidauros, the temples at Tegea and Nemea). These 
members, however, did not give an opportunity for such elaborate com- 
positions. The closest analogies are to be found, not in sculpture, but, as 
Petersen has observed, in the painted decoration on South Italian vases of 
the fourth century, especially the rich floral designs on the necks of colos- 
sal Apulian amphorae. The correspondence in details is very marked, as, 
for example, in the rendering of the tendrils in perspective. Figures of 
Eros, represented, as here, in the guise of a full-grown youth, are frequent 
on the vases. On the reverse of a colossal funerary amphora in this 
Museum also found at Ceglie (Inv. 03.804; Paton, A.J. A. XII, 1908, 
pp. 406 ff., fig. 2) Eros occupies the centre of the composition. Many of the 
designs show a large female head growing out of the central plant; and, 
as Petersen has suggested, a similar head is perhaps to be restored in the 
centre of this relief. 

The resemblances to the vase paintings and temple simae show that the 
relief is to be dated in the fourth century B.c. It is thus a Greek forerunner 
of the elaborate floral arabesques of the Roman imperial age, of which the 
reliefs from the Ara Pacis are the most famous examples. . 


50. CoLossaAL STATUE OF CYBELE 


Pentelic marble. Height, including plinth, 2.41 m. 

Missing, the head and neck, most of the right arm, the left shoulder and forearm, the right foot, 
part of the left foot, the back part of the figure, the attributes and the seat. The head and neck 
were made separately, and inserted into a rounded cavity in the top of the body. This was 
also made in at least two pieces. Most of the rear surface of the fragment is a roughly tooled 
plane sloping forward from top to bottom and from left to right; but on the left side the miss- 
ing rear block extended forward horizontally at the level of the top of the seat, forming a 
support for the front block. The tympanum upon which the left arm rested was also made 
separately and attached by means of a dowel. There are two large, square dowel-holes in the 
back, one in the upper part, the other in the lower. In the drapery on the side of the left leg, 
near the junction with the rear block are three small holes for metal pins which attached some 
objects here. In the front, between the knees, is a cutting 0.50 m. long, formed of two planes at 
right angles to one another, in which a piece of marble was cemented, probably to repair an 
injury. 

Found at Amiternum near Aquila, in Central Italy. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1899. 

Inv. 99.340. Ann. Rep. 1899, p. 23, no. 3. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 122, fig. 149. 


[ 106 ] 


HELLENISTIC PERIOD 


The goddess is represented as seated on a high throne, with her left foot 
resting squarely on the plinth in front and her right foot drawn back 
somewhat. The upper part of her body is held erect. Her left shoulder 





was raised, and the arm evidently rested upon the edge of a tympanum. 
This attribute is missing, but its original presence is indicated by the cir- 
cular plane in the marble under the remains of the arm. Her right arm 
was held downward against her side, with the hand probably resting in her 


[107 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


lap, as often in seated statues of Cybele, and as is suggested by a bit of 
marble projecting from the surface of the drapery on the right thigh. She 
wears three garments — an Ionic chiton, which appears only on the right 
forearm, a Doric chiton, and an himation. The Doric chiton, girded high 
under the breast, falls in a few simple folds over the abdominal region, and 
in voluminous folds about the feet. The himation was evidently carried 
over the head like a veil. It hangs over the left shoulder, covering the 
forearm. From the right side of the head it fell behind the figure, and was 
brought round to the front below the waist, covering the lap and the greater 
part of the legs. One end of it is turned back over the left thigh and falls 
between the knees in heavy folds almost to the feet. 

The proportions of the figure are slender rather than matronly. The 
shoulders are narrow, the breasts small, the abdomen flat and broad, the 
legs long. This latter feature is accentuated by the pose: the seat is so 
high that the thighs, instead of resting horizontally, have a pronounced 
downward slope. Evidently the statue was designed to be placed at a 
considerable elevation above the eye. 

The identification is established by the traces of the circular object 
under the left arm, which can only have been a tympanum. Numerous 
seated statues of Cybele are reproduced in Reinach, Répertoire de la statu- 
aire grecque et romaine (cf. also Roscher, Lexikon der Mythologie II, I, pp. 
1644 ff.), which show a general resemblance to this fragment, though no 
exact replica has yet been found. The most noteworthy of these are the 
statue in the Vatican, Museo Pio-Clementino, I, 40, and the statue in 
Glyptotek Ny Carlsberg, Billedtavler, pl. xxi, no. 333, ef. Rém. Mitt. 
XT IS9D apa 

The date of the statue is hard to determine. In the Annual Report it is 
held to be unmistakably a Greek original, executed probably in the latter 
part of the fifth or the beginning of the fourth century s.c. But, in spite 
of the grandeur and simplicity of the conception, there are difficulties in 
the way of accepting this theory. The high girding here illustrated, though 
it occurs as early as the middle of the fourth century (e. g. on the statue 
of Artemisia from the Mausoleum), did not become common before the 
Hellenistic period. The slenderness of the figure, also, and the freedom of 
the pose — with the upper part of the body turned to the left and the legs 


[ 108 ] 


HELLENISTIC PERIOD 


to the right — suggest a date after rather than before Lysippos. The prob- 
lem has, moreover, to be considered in connection with the finding place 
of the statue. Amiternum, one of the most important cities of the Sam- 
nites, was captured by the Romans in 293 B.c., and seems not to have 
recovered by the time of Strabo. That it was in a flourishing condition in 
the Roman imperial age is attested by the remains of a theatre, and amphi- 
theatre, and an aqueduct (cf. Paully-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopidie, I, p. 
1840). The statue may, therefore, have been erected before 293 B.c. or in 
imperial times; and of these alternatives the latter is the more probable. 
It may be a work of the Hellenistic period, later presented to the town of 
Amiternum by a Roman emperor. 


51. Drarpep Torso or A GODDESS 


Coarse-grained, Greek island marble. Height, 0.78 m. 

Only the front of the torso is preserved, the back of the fragment being a flat, smooth surface. 
The head and neck were made separately, and fastened with a large mortise in the top of the 
body by means of a dowel, the hole for which remains. There are similar cuttings at the sides 
for the insertion of the arms, and the bottom surface is also worked as a joint. The surfaces 
of the four joints are roughly tooled, while the rear surface is carefully smoothed; this differ- 
ence in technique suggests that the back of the torso may have been cut off at a later period. 
The theory that the figure was in high relief and affixed to a background (cf. Ann. Rep.) is im- 
probable. The surface of the marble is corroded. 

From Rome, or its vicinity. 

Catharine Page Perkins Collection, 1897. 

Inv. 97.286. Ann. Rep. 1897, p. 19, no. 2. 

This is a fragment of a draped statue of a goddess, of heroic size, and 
made originally in at least five separate pieces. The figure stood with the 
weight on the right leg, while the left may have been slightly advanced. 
The position of the head and of the arms cannot be determined with cer- 
tainty; apparently the right arm was held farther forward than the left. 
The goddess wears a chiton of thin, clinging material, confined close under 
the breasts by a cord tied in a large bow-knot. The garment is drawn 
smooth over the breasts, abdomen, and hips, fully revealing the forms be- 
neath. In other places, where it hangs more loosely, its texture is indicated 
by small, rippling folds. Among the lower edge of the fragment are traces 
of the himation, which was drawn across the middle of the body, and en- 
veloped the legs. Further traces along the right side suggest that a pomian 


of it may have been carried up over the back of the figure. 


[ 109 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


The soft, full bodily forms and the transparent drapery make it probable 
that the statue represented Aphrodite. No replicas have been identified. 

High girding, such as is illustrated here (cf. no. 45), did not come into 
general use before the Hellenistic period. And the practice of making 





statues in several pieces is also to be regarded as a late characteristic (cf. 
no. 47). On these grounds the work may be assigned to a sculptor of per- 
haps the second century B.c., who, in his rendering of the diaphanous 
drapery, was influenced by statues of the late fifth century. 


52. Torso oF A GIRL 


Greek marble, seemingly Parian. Height, 0.58 m. 

Only the front part of the torso is preserved; at the back the marble is rounded off. The remains 
of drapery at the hips have also been worked off. Traces of a small support on the right side at 
the level of the breast. 

Gift of J. Templeman Coolidge, Jr., 1917. 

Inv. 17.324. M. F. A. Bulletin III, 1905, p. 11. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 120, fig. 144. 


[110] 


ee 


HELLENISTIC PERIOD 


This torso is from a life-size statue of a girl standing with her weight 
chiefly supported by the left leg; the right shoulder is raised; the slight re- 
mains of the right arm show that it was lifted; the left arm apparently 





hung free. The torso is completely nude; but the legs were covered with 
drapery, traces of which remain at the hips. The girl may have been repre- 
sented lifting an end of her mantle with her right hand. 

Though the motive and designation of the figure cannot be determined, 
the successful rendering of the ‘‘soft yet firm, almost austere aspect of the 
youthful forms, the smooth texture of the skin, the rhythm of the delicate 
frame”’ suggests that the fragment is original Greek work probably of the 
Hellenistic period. 


(BL Lis] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


53. FRAGMENT OF A STATUE OF A SEATED WOMAN 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.58 m. 

The figure was made in several pieces, the preserved portion including only the legs. The back of 
the fragment is a flat surface, roughly tooled, and sloping forward towards the bottom. A large 
groove, 8 cm. deep, 8 to 11.5 em. wide, runs obliquely down it, apparently to receive a tenon 
cut on the missing rear portion. The top surface, behind the folds of the himation, is hollowed 
out in a curve to receive the upper part of the body. The left foot and the base on which it 





rested were also made separately. Incrustation has been removed from the surface by means 
of acid. Otherwise the preservation is excellent. 

Bought in Florence. 

Francis Bartlett Collection, 1903. 


Inv. 03.750. Ann. Rep. 1903, p. 57, no. 8. Mentioned in Arndt-Amelung, Einzelaufnahmen, text 
to Series II, p. 24. 


The figure was posed on a rather high seat, with the left foot placed on 
an elevation, bringing the thigh nearly to a horizontal position. The right 
thigh is inclined and swung out to the side; the foot rested on the ground. 


ru] 


HELLENISTIC PERIOD 


The legs are draped in a large himation, the upper edge of which is gathered 
in a heavy roll passing across the hips, with one end hanging down on the 
left side. The pose of the legs produces a series of deep folds running 
obliquely downward from left to right. 

A pattern composed of double lines, now largely obliterated, is lightly 
chiselled on the surface. The bands run vertically and horizontally, form- 
ing squares with sides 7 to 10 cm. long. Similar lines appear often on the 
drapery of Greek statues from the middle of the fourth century B.c. down 
to the Augustan age. In some cases, as, for example, on the so-called 
Maussollos from the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos, and the statue of a 
philosopher in the Capitoline Museum (Stanza del Gladiatore m. 8), they 
represent creases formed by folding the garment. In others (e. g. an Attic 
grave relief of the fourth century, Conze, Dve attischen Grabreliefs, no. 320, 
pl. xxxvi; four Hellenistic draped statues published in Arndt-Amelung, 
EHinzelaufnahmen, nos. 688, 724, 736, 755; the figures on the Gigantomachy 
frieze from Pergamon; the bronze portrait statue of a boy of the Julio- 
Claudian family in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, Richter, Cata- 
logue of Greek, Roman, and Etruscan Bronzes, no. 333) the lines seem 
intended to represent plastically a pattern in the cloth. And this expla- 
nation is to be preferred in the present instance. 

Such a rendering of patterns on drapery is especially characteristic of 
Hellenistic sculpture. The practice of building up a marble statue in 
several pieces also did not become common until after the fourth century 
B.c. (ef. nos. 45, 46; Arndt, in text to Brunn-Bruckmann, Denkmédler, pl. 
550; Dickins, B. S.A. XIII, p. 384). And the drapery, while effectively 
composed and skilfully executed, is treated in a hard, sharp style such as 
would not be expected in a fourth century work. The fragment is therefore 
to be dated in the Hellenistic period, though the type may have originated 
in the second half of the fourth century. 


[113 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


54. FEMALE HraApD 


Greek marble. Height, 0.365 m.; length of face, 0.15 m. 

Made for insertion. The contact surfaces at the sides and back of the bust are roughly tooled. 
The nose is missing; the knot of hair at the back has been broken off, and refastened. Two 
drill holes in the fillet at the back suggest that its ends were added separately. The face and 
neck have been cleaned. 

Probably from Greece. 

Gift of Edward P. Warren in memory of Samuel D. Warren, 1910. 

Inv. 10.80. 


The head was worked separately for insertion in a draped statue; a 
part of the himation shows on the left shoulder and behind, and traces of 





the chiton are visible along the edges of the bust. The head is inclined and 
turned slightly to the left. 

The hair is bound by a broad fillet, and done up into a simple knot at 
the back. In front, below the fillet, it is carried in wavy locks from a cen- 
tral parting to the sides, covering the tips of the ears. The details of these 
locks are sharply carved, whereas the surface of the hair above the fillet 


[114] 


HELLENISTIC PERIOD 


is executed in a sketchy manner. The forehead and cheeks are broad and 
rather flat with abrupt transitions to the sides. The small eyes are not set 
deeply, and the lids are only slightly accentuated. Depressions run from 
the wings of the nose to the corners of the lips, which are full, especially 
the lower one. The mouth is closed — an unusual feature in Greek female 
heads. The chin is rather prominent. The head is gracefully poised on the 
slender neck, round which two creases are faintly indicated. 

While not a portrait, the head has a certain individual character. It 
apparently represents a mortal rather than a goddess, and may have be- 
longed to a statue over a grave. The distant gaze and the slight tinge of 
melancholy in the expression tell in favor of this supposition. 

The head is of Greek workmanship, and perhaps to be assigned to the 
end of the fourth century B.c. 


55. Heap or HoMER 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.41 m.; length of face, 0.21 m. 

The base of the neck is worked for insertion. Missing, most of the nose, and a fragment from the 
right side of the neck. There is a scar above the right eyebrow. Otherwise the preservation 
of the surface is perfect. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1904. 

Inv. 04.13. Ann. Rep. 1904, p. 56, no. 7. M.F.A. Bulletin III, 1905, p. 3. Burlington Fine Arts 
Club, Exhibition of Ancient Greek Art, 1903, Catalogue, p. 26, no. 39. Hekler, Greek and 
Roman Portraits, pl. 118a. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 132, fig. 164. 


The head is of heroic size, and was made to be set into a statue or a 
herm. The neck is bent forward, and the head is turned a little to its right. 
It is encircled by a narrow, round fillet, such as appears on the portraits of 
numerous famed men of antiquity (e. g., the statues of Anakreon and 
Sophocles, and the head, no. 77). Below the fillet thick locks of hair fall on 
the nape of the neck, and large clusters of curls in front of the ears. In 
contrast, the part enclosed by the fillet is carved in simple, wavy strands 
lying rather flat, and the front of the skull is nearly bald; thin locks are 
brushed forward from the crown, and there is a small tuft of hair above 
the middle of the forehead. The beard is composed, like the locks sur- 
rounding the face, of thick irregular curls, their interstices being deeply 
hollowed out with a skilful use of the drill. The lines and furrows in the 
forehead and in the sunken cheeks, the emaciated upper lip hardly con- 
cealed by the thin moustache, the sinews showing through the wrinkled 


[115] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


skin of the neck are carved with the utmost realism, going farther in this 
respect than most of other examples of the type. An unmistakable, though 
not exaggerated, effect of blindness is produced by the lifting of the eye- 
brows and the consequent strained look of the eyes, by the wasting of the 
flesh in the eye-sockets, and by the small openings left between the thin 





lids. Yet the head, in spite of all these naturalistic details, gives no im- 
pression of senility, but rather of great intellectual force, nobility, and 
mildness. 

Two distinct types of Homer have been identified among the remains 
of Greek portrait sculpture. The first is best represented by a head in 
Munich (Beschreibung der Glyptothek,? no. 275) in which blindness is indi- 
cated by the closed eyelids. This type goes back to the fifth century B.c. 
The second type, to which the present head belongs, exists in numerous 
replicas, which vary in the treatment of details, as well as in excellence of 
execution, but are all so nearly related as to show that they are derived 
from a common original of the Hellenistic period. The present example 


[ 116 ] 


HELLENISTIC PERIOD 


resembles most closely the heads in the Louvre and in Schwerin (Hekler, 
Greek and Roman Portraits, pl. 117, and b). Of some seventeen replicas 
cited by Bernoulli, Griechische Ikonographie I, p. 8, at least five are in the 
form of herms; whether this head was similarly mounted, or whether it 
belonged to a statue remains uncertain. A famous bronze statue of Homer, 





which stood in Constantinople in Roman times, has been described by two 
late writers, Christodorus and Cedrenus (the passages are quoted by 
Bernoulli). The description of the former, though florid and rhetorical, 
corresponds in so many details with this head as to suggest that the statue 
was closely related in type. It is not clear whether the figure was standing 
or seated, though the latter supposition is more probable; his hands were 
propped on a staff. 

The head has nothing of the mechanical quality of a Graeco-Roman 
copy. It is to be ascribed to a Hellenistic sculptor, who, while conforming 
closely to an already existing type, has treated it in a fresh and individual 
style. 


p17] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


56. Porrrair HRAD oF A GIRL 


Bronze. Height, 0.255 m.; length of face, 0.15 m. 

Cast hollow; the shell varies from 1.5 to 2.5 cm. in thickness. Broken from a statue at the junction 
with the neck. The eyeballs, which were made separately, are missing. The chin is cracked, 
and the lower part of it has been broken off and refastened. The right side of the face and the 
front of the skull have been bent in, causing two breaks in the hair above the forehead. There 








is also a dent in the forehead. The surface is corroded in places, and covered by a light green 
patina which appears to have been applied artificially in modern times. 

Said to have been found at or near the site of Memphis in Egypt. 

Catharine Page Perkins Collection, 1896. 

Inv. 96.712. Ann. Rep. 1896, p. 26, no. 2. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 129, fig. 160. 


Though modelled with extreme simplicity the features have a strongly 
individual character, showimg that the head is a portrait. The face is long 


and narrow, the skull very high and rounded. In the profile view the long, 
straight nose nearly continues the sloping line of the forehead. It has a 


[118 J 


HELLENISTIC PERIOD 


drooping tip, and well-dilated nostrils. The upper lip is very short, the 
chin small and rounded. The forehead is low, and beautifully modelled, 
with a slight swelling of the frontal bone above the nose, and again at the 
temples. The eyes are not set deeply under the sharply defined brows; 
their opening is narrow, and the lids are not accentuated. The eyeballs, as 





is usual in Greek and Roman bronze heads down to the second century 
A.D., were made of a different material, colored in imitation of nature. The 
lips are closed in a bow-shaped curve. The ears are simply, but carefully 
modelled. 

The hair is arranged in an unusual fashion. Its irregular curling strands, 
which seem shorter at the back than the front, are confined by a fillet 
wound twice about the head in such a way as to reveal the very individual 
contour of the skull. In front, on either side of the central parting, two 


C119 J 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


thick masses of locks are drawn back over the fillet, and held by having 
their ends tucked under it. | 

Dr. Robinson, in the Annual Report, has proposed to identify the head 
as a portrait of Arsinoé II, daughter of Ptolemy I, and queen of Ptolemy 
Philadelphus. ‘Not only is the nose on the coins strikingly like this, but 
the profile shows the same low, pretty forehead, short upper lip, and small 
rounded chin. . . . The coins represent a considerably older woman, as 
would be natural, since Arsinoé must have been about thirty-seven years 
old when she became the wife of Ptolemy Philadelphus. If, therefore, our 
head is a portrait of her, it must have been made before, or at the time of, 
her first marriage to Lysimachus, King of Thrace, which occurred when 
she was about seventeen.’’ The provenance of the head lends probability 
to the theory that it may represent a member of the Ptolemaic family; and 
among the princesses portrayed on the coins Arsinoé II is the most likely 
candidate. A date early in the Hellenistic period is also suggested by the 
style. But the identification remains doubtful. 


”) 


57. Heap or Protemy IV, PHitopator (221-204 B.c.) 


Fully crystalline, white marble. Height, 0.275 m.; length of face, 0.15 m. 

The end of the chin is broken off. The neck is preserved complete, the bottom being a worked 
surface slanting forward slightly. Three large holes are drilled in each cheek in a line from the 
ear to the chin, and two similar holes under the chin. 

Bought with no. 58 in Alexandria from Mme. Vve. Stamati Vinga, who did not vouch for the relia- 
bility of the report that the two heads were found near Khadra, the ancient Eleusis. 

Henry L. Prerce Fund, 1901. 

Inv. 01.8208. Ann. Rep. 1901, p. 36. Dutilh, Journ. intern. d’arch. num. III, 1900, pp. 313-316, 
pls. 15, 16. 

The head was probably set in a statue. It is inclined and turned slightly 
to its left. The youthful face is broad and full in the upper part, but nar- 
rows down to a small, pointed chin. The eyes are widely opened, the eye- 
balls very prominent. The nose is small and retroussé. The mouth also is 
very small, with soft, full lips. In profile the head is distinguished by the 
perpendicular line of the forehead, the pronounced angle which the nose 
makes with it, the large ears, the turning down of the corners of the lips, 
and the heaviness of the flesh under the chin. 

The royal diadem appears, carved in the marble, around the back of the 


head. Its continuation in front of the ears was left to be added in stucco. 
[ 120 ] 


HELLENISTIC PERIOD 


Locks of hair are carved below the diadem at the back, and in places on the 
top of the head similar locks appear, though more sketchily rendered. 
Most of the surface here, however, is only blocked out, and a broad band, 
slightly sunk and roughly tooled, extends across the head from behind the 
ears. Some of the locks over the forehead are faintly indicated, but inter- 
rupted by a similar depressed and roughened surface on either side. These 
peculiarities show that the head, like its companion piece, no. 58, and many 





other marble heads of Hellenistic date found in Egypt, was pieced out with 
stucco. The eight holes in the lower part of the face can only have been for 
the purpose of attaching a beard. The careful finish of the surface here 
shows that the beard was either a later addition, or,as Dutilh has suggested, 
that it was intended to be removable, and to be used only on special oc- 
casions. 

The royal diadem and the Egyptian origin of this and the following 
head, which are evidently a pair, make it fairly certain that they repre- 
sent one of the Ptolemies and his wife. And a comparison with the coin 
portraits of the Ptolemaic dynasty leaves no doubt as to the correctness of 
the identification proposed by Dutilh and accepted by Svoronos. The 


[121 J 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


resemblance between the profile view of this head and that on the coins of 
Ptolemy IV is striking, allowance being made for the fact that the coins 
show him at a somewhat later period when his features had become 
heavier. The character of the head is also quite in accordance with what is 
known of this degenerate king. And the resemblance of the companion 
piece to the coin portraits of Arsinoé furnishes additional confirmation. 
On the portraits of Ptolemy IV see Hauser, Jahreshefte, VIII, 1905, pp. 
83 ff., Blum, B. C. H. XXXIX, 1915, pp. 17-22; on his character, Ma- 
haffy, A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty, p. 114. On the com- 
bination of stucco with marble in Alexandrian sculpture, cf. Hauser, Berl. 
phil. Wochenschr. 1905, p. 70; Rubensohn, Arch. Anz. XXI, 1906, p. 134; 
Amelung, Ausonia, III, 1909, pp. 115 ff.; Sieveking, in the text to Brunn- 
Bruckmann, Denkmédler, pl. 605; Dickins, Hellenistic Sculpture, p. 22. A 
head in Alexandria, identified as Ptolemy III by Breccia, Alexandrea ad 
Aigyptum, p. 181, fig. 87, is closely related in style and technique. 


58. Heap or Arsinoz# III 


Fully crystalline, white marble. Height, 0.35 m.; length of face, 0.155 m. 

The piece includes the neck and a part of the bust, which is broken on the right side. The bottom 
surface is a roughly worked plane with a steep slope downward towards the front. The back 
of the skull is lacking, the surface being flat, and roughly tooled. The tip of the nose and both 
ears are slightly injured. The ears are pierced for earrings. In the top of the head is a drill 
hole, probably for the attachment of a diadem. 

Bought with no. 57 in Alexandria. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 

Inv. 01.8207. Ann. Rep. 1901, p. 36. Dutilh, Journ. intern. d’arch. num. III, 1900, pp. 313-315, 
pls. 15, 16. 


The head is inclined and turned slightly to the right. The face shows a 
family resemblance to that of her brother and husband, Ptolemy IV (no. 
57), but it is of a more oval shape, the features are more refined, and the 
expression more intelligent. The eyes are less widely opened, the nose is 
longer and slightly aquiline, the mouth larger and less weak. The person 
represented appears older than Philopator, whereas Arsinoé was several 
years his junior. But the close resemblance to her portrait on coins, and 
the fact that the two heads are a pair leave no doubt as to the identifica- 
tion. 

[122 ] 


HELLENISTIC PERIOD 


The head shows the same technical peculiarities as no. 57. The back of 
the skull was added in stucco, and the hair over the forehead was also 
executed in this material, the surface here being only blocked out. The 
rudely carved band immediately above the forehead is not the diadem 





(this was placed higher up and secured by a dowel in the top of the head), 
but was covered by the plaster headdress. The drapery around the neck 
was also finished in stucco. 


59. SMALL HEAD OF A BARBARIAN 


Greek marble. Height, 0.152 m.; length of face, 0.078 m. 

The working of the lower surface at the back shows that the head is from a bust, not a statuette. 
The nose and the front and sides of the bust are broken off; otherwise in excellent preser- 
vation. 

From Rome. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1900. 

Inv. 00.309. Ann. Rep. 1900, p. 28, no, 6. 


This is a realistic portrait of a man evidently not of Greek or Roman 
race. He is clean shaven except for thin whiskers indicated plainly on the 


[123 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


left cheek and more faintly on the right. His thick, straight hair is brushed 
forward from the crown to the forehead, where the interstices between the 
ends of the locks are hollowed out with the drill. His face is broad, but 
lean, with prominent cheek-bones, firmly closed mouth, and pointed chin. 
The eyes are narrow, the pupil being indicated by a small hole drilled just 





below the upper lid, the iris perhaps by an incised line, though the traces 
are uncertain. There are two vertical creases between the brows, and two 
fainter, horizontal creases above them. 

Later Hellenistic period. 


60. STATUE OF A WoMAN 


Fine-grained, Italian marble. Height, 1.15 m. 

Missing, the head and neck, the right forearm, the left shoulder with a portion of the back, the whole 
of the left arm, the feet with parts of the legs, a piece of the end of the himation and the folds of 
the chiton hanging from the left hand. A break runs diagonally across the legs at the level of 
the knees. The front surface is corroded. The head and neck, and the right forearm were 
originally worked separately. The missing parts have at some time been restored, as is shown 
by numerous holes in the broken surfaces, some with iron pins in them. 


[ 124 ] 


ee ae 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


Formerly in private possession at Beaune in the south of France. Said to have been acquired by 
an ancestor of the former owner in 1858 at Naples, where it belonged to the private collection 
of the king, or a member of the royal family. 

Francis Bartlett Fund, 1923. 

Inv. 23.1. 


This is an example of a type of statue created in Ionia in the first half 
of the sixth century s.c., and best known from the series of statues of 











Maidens found among the pre-Persian remains on the Athenian Acropolis. 
The figure, garbed in Ionic chiton and himation, stands in a rigid, frontal 
pose, with the left leg slightly advanced. Her right arm was bent at the 
elbow, and the hand held a flower or a fruit. With her left hand she 
grasped part of the skirt of the chiton in such a way that the material was 


[125 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


drawn tightly across the legs, and hung in vertical folds at her left side. 
The short himation covers the right shoulder and upper arm. Its border 
passes diagonally across the breast; its ends hang in a series of vertical 
folds below the right arm to the level of the knees. Her long hair falls in a 
rectangular mass on her back, and in three separate locks upon her breast 
on either side of her head. 

While the archaic type is faithfully reproduced and the schematic folds 
of drapery skilfully executed, there are several indications that the statue 
is a copy executed in the Graeco-Roman period. The marble is Italian. 
The support at the back of the legs, in the form of a gnarled tree-trunk, is 
unknown in the archaic examples of the type, but is very similar to the 
supports found in countless Roman copies of Greek statues. The vertical 
folds of the himation are hollowed out with a drill, instead of being cut 
with a saw. The details of the mass of hair at the back are not elaborately 
carved as in archaic statues, but rendered merely by wavy lines lightly 
incised on the surface. 

Copies of this type are comparatively rare, and usually of inferior 
workmanship. The closest parallel to the present example is furnished by 
a statue in the Conservatori Museum at Rome (Ghirardini, Bullettino 
Comunale, IX, 1881, pl. v, pp. 106 ff.). This has been erroneously held to 
be an archaic original (by Ghirardini, J. c., and Amelung, in Helbig, 
Fihrer,? I, p. 558, no. 975); Studniczka, Rom. Mitt. III, 1888, p. 277, and 
Dickins, Hellenistic Sculpture, p. 79, rightly regard it as a copy. 


61. Heap or ARTEMIS 


Greek marble. Height, 0.36 m.; length of face, 0.169 m. 

Worked for insertion in a statue; the base of the neck is rounded and roughly tooled. Missing, 
the eyeballs, the tip of the nose, part of the left ear (which was made separately and cemented 
on), and the end of the cue. There are small breaks in the lower lip, the chin, the right ear, and 
the edge of the diadem. The surface is slightly corroded, with traces of incrustation which has 
been removed by means of acid. 

From Italy. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1899. 

Inv. 99.338. Ann. Rep. 1899, p. 21, no. 1. Von Mach, Greek and Roman Sculpture, pl. 445. Chase, 
Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 150, fig. 179. 


The head is strained forward slightly with an air of alertness, suggesting 
that the figure may have been represented in a walking attitude, like the 


[ 126 J 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


well-known statue of Artemis from Pompeii (Brunn-Bruckmann, Denk- 
mdler, pl. 356). She wears a narrow diadem, decorated on the front and 
sides with a row of flowers carved in relief. The identification as Artemis 
is supported by this flowery diadem, the girlish type of the face, and the 





resemblance in the pose to the head of the Pompeian statue. The hair is 
rendered in the schematic style of the archaic period. In front, below the 
diadem, it is treated as a thick mass coming down low at the sides, and 
ending abruptly in front of the ears. Its lower edge is deeply undercut. 
The surface is carved in small, parallel waves starting from a parting in 
the centre. The top of the head is smooth, with wavy lines, radiating from 
the crown, incised in it at intervals, and with very fine lines engraved be- 


C127] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


tween them. At the back the hair falls in a rigid mass standing out from 
the neck; its surface is treated like that on the crown. A portion of it is 
apparently pulled up under the diadem, and projects above it in the form 





of a small roll; the strands are here separated by deeply drilled depressions 
which correspond with the incised lines coming from the crown. 

The face is broad and full, and modelled in a simple, definite style. The 
arched eyebrows have rather sharp edges which are continued along the 
bridge of the nose. The eyes are widely opened, set too nearly in a plane 
with the brow, and have a slight inward slant. The lids are thin, with a 
prolongation at the inner angle for the lachrymal gland; the upper lid 
overlaps the lower at the outer angle. The eyeballs were made separately 


[ 128 ] 


o— - 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


of another material colored in imitation of nature. The narrow lips are 
slightly parted, and show no trace of the archaic smile. The ears are 
placed too high; they are pierced for earrings which were probably of 
bronze. The neck is long and large; the details of the throat are delicately 
modelled. 

On general grounds of style the head is to be assigned to the close of the 
archaic period. It has been held to be an original of about 480 B.c. But 
certain details of technique suggest that it is a copy, executed in Graeco- 
Roman times, of an archaic bronze. The carving of the lips lacks the pre- 
cision of archaic work; and the overlapping of the eyelids is not found in 
Greek originals before the middle of the fifth century. On a marble head 
of the archaic period the flowers of the diadem would probably have been 
painted, instead of being carved in relief. Still another argument is fur- 
nished by the traces of the drill used in the working of the ears and parts 
of the hair. But with these exceptions, all the details of the bronze original 
are very accurately reproduced; and the head has an animation and a 
freshness of style which distinguish it from the mass of Roman copies. 

No replicas or even close parallels can be cited. The face of the Pom- 
peian Artemis is of quite a different type; and the same is true of an un- 
published head in the Conservatori Museum, which also has a flowered 
diadem, hollowed eye-sockets, and a similar arrangement of the hair over 
the forehead. 


62. Heap oF A GODDESS 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.44 m.; length of face, 0.223 m. 

Worked for insertion; the bottom surface slopes downward from back to front. The base of the 
neck is broken along the front and left side; the tip of the nose and the ends of some of the 
curls are missing. The eyes and the chin are slightly injured, and the surface of the left side 
of the face and the upper lip is corroded. 

From Rome. 

Purchased from the James Fund, and with a contribution from Mrs. W. Scott Fitz, 1916. 

Inv. 16.62. Ann. Rep. 1916, p. 96. M.F.A. Bulletin XIV, 1916, p. 28. Chase, Greek and Roman 
Sculpture, p. 38, fig. 39. 


As is shown by the replica in the Conservatori Museum at Rome, the 
statue to which this head belonged was a standing figure of a goddess, 
of heroic size, heavily draped in chiton and himation. The figure stood 
with the weight chiefly on the left leg, and with the head turned slightly 

[129 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN. SCULPTURE 


to the left. The treatment of the hair shows that the original was of 
bronze. Thick, wavy tresses are carried from a central parting to the 
sides of the head. They come down low on the forehead, and terminate 





in spiral curls, which frame the face and extend as far as the shoulders. 
The forehead is broad and flat; the brows are rendered as sharp lines 
which are continued down the bridge of the nose. The eyes are large, set 
too nearly in a plane with the brows, and with lids strongly accentuated. 
The cheeks are full and round, and the chin is very heavy. The closed 
mouth, slightly depressed at the corners and with a prominent under-lip, 
enhances the severity of the expression. 

The work is a Graeco-Roman copy, executed probably in the first or 
second century 4.D., of a Greek original to be dated about 460 B.c., and to 
be ascribed to the Attic School. This is proved by the high, rounded con- 


[ 130 ] 


Se ee 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


tour of the skull and the heavy proportions of the lower part of the face. 
In his publication of the Conservator replica, Bullettino Comunale XXIII, 
1904, pp. 299 ff., pls. vim, rx, Mariani suggests that the sculptor may have 
been Kalamis. Certain features suggest that it may have been an early 
work of Pheidias. The closest parallel to the hair treatment is furnished by 
the head of Demeter on the Eleusinian relief, which is held to be of Pheidian 
style. The wavy strands along the forehead recall the heavy, snaky tresses 





seen on numerous Pheidian female heads. The full cheeks and rounded 
jaw are another Pheidian characteristic, illustrated by various heads of 
Athena which have been connected with him. 

A headless statue found in the American excavations at Corinth, A. J. 
A. VI, 1902, p. 430, pl. xv, is noted by Mariani as a copy of the same 
original. He also publishes a replica of the head in the Ducal Palace at 
Venice: /.c., pls. XI, XI. 


63. Hrap oF A YOUTH 


Fine-grained, Greek marble. Height, 0.37 m.; length of face, 0.185 m. 

Missing, the bridge of the nose, the cluster of curls in front of the right ear, and the eyeballs which 
were made separately. The right cheek and the hair on the left side are slightly injured. The 
base of the neck has a rounded, roughly tooled surface. 

Bought in Rome. 

Francis Bartlett Collection, 1903. 

Inv. 03.754. Ann. Rep. 1903, p. 58, no. 12. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 151, fig. 181. 


isin 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


The head is of a heavy, athletic type, set upon a muscular neck. It was 
made for insertion in a statue or a herm — more probably the latter since 
the back of the neck has a flat surface. The head is turned slightly to the 
left. The hair is worn neither long nor short, but in an unusual transitional 
style. It is confined by a flat fillet, and, below this, by a thin hoop. Above 





the latter, the surface is carved in a system of fine, wavy strands radiating 
from the crown. Below the hoop it is arranged in rather long, wavy locks. 
Those above the centre of the forehead are gathered up into a bunch of 
small, tight curls; thick clusters of locks hang down in front of the ears; 
behind them the locks are drawn to the nape of the neck, and are tied to- 
gether. The face is square, with a short upper lip, and a very long and 
massive chin. The forehead has a horizontal depression, and swells out 
strongly below it. The eyes were inserted. The full, curling lips are slightly 
parted. The ears appear to be swollen; but it is not certain whether this 
is due to intention or to the careless technique of the artist. 

The head is apparently a Graeco-Roman copy of a Greek bronze of 
about 460 B.c., of which no other replica has as yet been noted. The hair 


[ 132 ] 


A ot. th TEs - 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


on the crown is carved in the style of bronze works of the transitional 
period, and the locks over the forehead show some resemblance to those of 
the Cassel Apollo. But the modelling of the features is so clumsy that the 
work cannot be regarded as giving an adequate idea of the forms of the 
original. Its inferiority as a copy may be appreciated by comparing it with 
the head of Artemis, no. 53. 


64. STATUETTE OF HERAKLES 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.57 m. 

Missing, the tip of the nose, the left forearm and hand (which were at some time refastened), 
and a corner of the plinth. When found the whole surface was covered with a hard incrustation, 
which has been removed from the front by means of acid. 

Said to have been found in Rome, between the Aventine and the Tiber. 

Francis Bartlett Fund, 1914. 

Inv. 14.733. Ann. Rep. 1914, p. 94. M. F. A. Bulletin, XII, 1914, p. 44. Burlington Fine Arts 
Club, Exhibition of Ancient Art, 1903, Catalogue, no. 12, pl. x11. Brunn-Bruckmann-Arndt, 
Denkméiler, pls. 569, 570, with discussion, by Arndt. Gardner, Six Greek Sculptors, p. 73, pl. xv. 
Cf. Furtwingler, Meisterwerke, p. 591, note 4; Antike Gemmen II, text to pl. xin, 35; Conze, 
Arch. Anz. XVIII, 1903, p. 144. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 39, fig. 41. 

The nude figure of Herakles stands in the simple, almost rigid pose 
common to the athletic statues of the early fifth century. His weight is 
borne more by his left leg than his right, but the soles of both feet are 
planted firmly on the ground. His right hand rests on one end of his club, 
the other end of which is supported on a small elevation beside his foot. 
The lion’s skin hangs over his extended left arm, and the hand held a bow, 
as is proved by reproductions of the figure on gems. His head is inclined 
to its left, and the gaze is directed downward. His body, though of a 
powerful, athletic build, is not heavy, as in later representations of 
Herakles; but the great strength of the hero is suggested by the massive 
neck and the swelling shoulder muscles. There is also a slight, but distinct 
indication of weariness in the droop of the head. 

The execution is unusually detailed for a work in marble of such small 
dimensions. The muscles of the torso and the arms are clearly and ac- 
curately rendered; veins are even indicated on the abdomen, hands, and 
feet. The features are sharply defined, and the short, thick curls of the 
hair and beard are carved with the utmost elaboration. The ears show the 
swollen cartilage characteristic of boxers’ ears (cf. the heads of Herakles, 
no. 74 and of Diomede, no. 67). 


(a133.8 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


The statuette is a copy, executed in Graeco-Roman times, of a Greek 
bronze of the middle of the fifth century B.c. Its prototype was evidently 
famous in antiquity, judging from the number of existing reproductions, 








and the theory that it may have been a work of Myron has been favorably 
received by several authorities. 

The other reproductions, most of which have already been noted by 
Arndt, are as follows: an intaglio gem, Furtwingler, Antike Gemmen, pl. 
xu, 37 (rear view); another, ibid. pl. xu, 35 (profile view showing 
bow); a third in the possession of Dr. Arndt; a large number of Roman im- 
perial medallions and coins (for list with references cf. Arndt, J. c.); a terra- 
cotta lamp in the British Museum; a terra-cotta head from Smyrna in 


[134 J 


ee ee 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


this Museum, here reproduced. A life-size marble head of inferior quality 
in the Glyptotek Ny Carlsberg, Billedtavler, Supplement, pl. rv, no. 251a, 
is also possibly derived from the same original.! It is noteworthy that, 
with this doubtful exception, all the reproductions are of small size, or on 
examples of the minor arts. The terra-cotta head is from a gilded statuette 
of the Hellenistic period, which must have corresponded very closely in 
dimensions with the marble figure. The suggestion has therefore been 
made? that the prototype was a statuette at the same scale, from which 
the terra-cotta may have been produced with the use of a mould. This 
theory would also explain the very detailed execution of the marble replica, 
which distinguishes it from most Graeco-Roman statuettes. These are 
generally reduced copies of life-size statues, reproducing only the general 
features of the original, and of little value for determining its style. Cf. 
the figure of an athlete with a strigil, no. 68. 

The present statuette is assigned by Arndt to the Hadrianic or An- 
tonine period, because of the twisted support connecting the club with the 
thigh, the profiled plinth, and the drill marks in the hair. The tree-trunk 
is an addition of the copyist, and the object at its base, which has some 
resemblance to running water, suggests that the figure was set up in a 
Roman sanctuary where Herakles was worshipped as the protector of a 
warm, medicinal spring.’ 


65. SMALL MALE Torso 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.25 m. 

Missing, the head, neck, shoulders, and chest, the legs and the greater parts of both arms. 
Acquired by the donor in Rome, in 1889. 

Anonymous gift, 1892. 

Inv. 92.2741. Ann. Rep. 1892, p. 17, no. 3. 


The nude figure of a heavy, muscular type. It stood with the weight 
carried slightly more by the left leg than the right. The right arm hung 


at the side; the left was drawn back, and bent at the elbow. The treat- 
ment of the body is rather flat, but the muscles over the hips and the lower 


1 This has been suggested by Dr. F. Poulsen. 
2 By Mr. John Marshall. 
3 F. Hauser, quoted by Arndt, J. c. 


[135 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


outline of the abdomen are definitely indicated. The pubes is rendered 
schematically as three rows of pellets; the navel is an incised circle. In 





the profile view the back is drawn in at the waist in an exaggerated man- 
ner, and the glutaei are very prominent. 
The type suggests that the statuette may have represented Herakles. 
It is an archaistic work of the Graeco-Roman period, reflecting the 
style of the second quarter of the fifth century B.c. 


66. Heap or Zeus AMMON 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.27 m. 

Missing, the greater parts of both horns, the ram’s ears, which were made separately and fastened 
into round holes in the sides of the head, and the ends of the fillet. The left horn was once 
refastened, as is shown by dowel-holes in the break and in the side of the head. The tip of the 
nose, the right eyebrow and some of the locks of the beard are slightly chipped. 

Bought in Rome; said to have come from Formiae. 

Francis Bartlett Collection, 1903. 

Inv. 03.755. Ann. Rep. 1903, p. 58, no. 10. 


The head, judging from other replicas, has probably been broken from 
a herm. It is inclined slightly to its right. The type of the face is mild, 
without any suggestion of the animal nature which appears in some repre- 
sentations of Ammon. The outlines of the eyebrows and lids are sharply 
marked; the lips are parted. The ram’s horns, springing from above the 


[ 136 ] 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


temples, grew downward at the sides of the head, and were curled around 
the ears; these were made separately, evidently in the form of ram’s ears. 





A hoop, with a fillet wound about it and tied in a knot at the back, en- 
circles the head. The thick locks of hair above the forehead have the ap- 
pearance of being plaited. Heavy locks hang down the sides of the face. 
The surface of the hair on the top of the head, as well as that of the mous- 
tache and beard, is fairly smooth, with wavy locks carved in outline 
upon it. 

The rendering of the eyes and the schematic arrangement of the hair 
show that the type goes back to the second half of the fifth century B.c. 
It has been suggested that the original may have stood at Cyrene where 
this hellenised form of an Egyptian divinity was especially worshipped. 
The work is a careful, but rather mechanical copy, executed in Roman 
times. 

Other replicas of this type are in Worlitz (Arndt-Amelung, Hinzelauf- 
nahmen, 398, 399), in Berlin (Beschreibung der antiken Skulpturen, 9), and 


[187] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


in Stockholm. On the fifth century representations of Ammon in general, 
see Arndt in the text to Hinzelaufnahmen, 398, Furtwangler, Uber Statuen- 
kopien im Altertum, I, p. 40, and the same, in Beschreibung der Glyptothek,? 
no, 225. 


67. Heap or DIOMEDES 
Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.274 m.; length of face, 0.18 m. 


Broken into four pieces; the joints filled with plaster. The chief injuries are on the left side between 
the eye and the ear, the lower lid of the right eye, part of the upper lid, the tip of the nose 
with the right nostril, the tip of the right ear and the end of the lobe of the left. These portions 
have all been restored in plaster. The hair above the forehead is somewhat corroded. Other- 
wise the surface is in excellent condition. 

Said to have been acquired in Italy. Formerly in the Cavendish-Bentinck and Newton-Robinson 
Collections. 

Francis Bartlett Collection, 1903. 

Inv. 03.745. Ann. Rep. 1903, p. 56, no. 3. Brunn-Bruckmann-Arndt, Denkmdler, 548. Chase, 
Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 67, fig. 73. 

The head is from a statue representing Diomedes carrying off the 
Palladion from Troy. As is shown by a more complete replica in Munich, 
the hero stood in the Polycleitan pose with his left leg drawn back, holding 
his sword in his right hand and the image in his left; his head was turned 
sharply to the left, as if he had become aware of a sudden danger. Accord- 
ing to the story Odysseus, his comrade in the adventure, made a stealthy 
attempt to wrest the prize from him, but desisted on being discovered. 
The original was a bronze statue of the fifth century, set up probably at 
Argos, since it is reproduced on a Roman coin issued there. Its fame in 
antiquity is attested by the existence of several other replicas, including a 
representation on an Attic vase of about 400 B.c. It has been ascribed by 
Furtwingler on convincing grounds to Kresilas of Crete, a contemporary 
of Polykleitos and Pheidias, who is known to have been active both at 
Athens and Argos. Cf. Furtwingler, Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture, pp. 
146 ff. 

The head has been justly called ‘‘a masterpiece of characterisation 
within the boundaries of the ideal style of the fifth century.” The skull is 
of a square shape, and is covered by a thick mass of short, crisp curls. The 
outline of the face is a long oval. The brows are level, the eyes long and 
narrow, with drooping and very salient upper lids; the nose has a narrow, 
rounded ridge and delicate nostrils; the lips are slightly parted, showing 


[138 J 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


the upper row of teeth, and the lower lip is very full; a short beard 
fringes the cheeks and chin; the ears are swollen like those of boxers. The 
influence of Polykleitos, illustrated in the body by the attitude and by the 
prominent rendering of the principal muscles of the torso, appears also in 
the flat outline of the skull. But the modelling of the features gives the 
face an individual character which is foreign to the works of the Argive 





master (cf. the head of Hermes, no. 60). Several details of style, notably 
the treatment of the eyes and hair, serve to connect the head closely with 
the portrait of Perikles by Kresilas. 

This is the best extant replica of the head, reproducing faithfully the 
characteristics of the bronze original. On the statue in Munich cf. Furt- 
wiingler-Wolters, Beschreibung der Glyptothek, no. 304. An inferior copy 
is in the Louvre (Furtwingler, Masterpieces, p. 146 and note 5). A good 
replica of the head, known only through a cast in the Dresden Museum, is 
published by Furtwaingler, ibid. fig. 62. Another is in the Antiquarium in 
Rome (Helbig, Fuhrer,’ I, no. 1027; Arndt-Amelung, Hinzelaufnahmen, 
nos. 809, 810). A very bad replica is in the Prado, Madrid (Hinzelaufnah- 
men, nos. 1659-62). The body of a statue of Hadrian, in the Musée 
Alaoni, Algeria, is in the type of Diomedes (Rev. Arch. 1902, IT, p. 395, pl. 


[ 139 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


xv; Catalogue des musées de l Algérie, Musée Alaoni, no. 932, pl. xxvt). 
Finally, the Glyptothek in Munich possesses a left hand, thought to be 
from a replica of the statue (Beschreibung,* no. 304a). In Rém. Mitt. XVI, 
1901, pp. 33 ff. Pfuhl argues that the statue was part of a group, and 
identifies a head in the Museo delle Terme in Rome as a replica of the 
head of Odysseus. This theory is rejected by Amelung, in Helbig, Fuhrer,’ 
II, no. 1393. 


68. Heap or HERMES 


Greek island marble. Height, 0.27 m.; length of face, 0.185 m. 

Missing, the lower half of the nose. The upper part of the skull, which was covered by the petasos, 
is omitted. The top surface is slightly rounded, and roughly tooled, except for a contact band 
around the edge. A large iron dowel in the crown by which the petasos was secured, has 
recently been removed. There are faint traces of black paint indicating the pupils of the eyes 
and the outlines of the irises. 

Found in the neighborhood of Capua. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1898. 


Inv. 98.641. Ann. Rep. 1898, p. 20, no. 1. Mahler, Polyklet, p. 27, no. 34. Sieveking, Jahrbuch, 
XXIV, 1909, pp. 1-7, pls. 1, u. Reinach, Gazette des beaux arts, March, 1911, p. 251. Caskey, 
A.J.A. XV, 1911, p. 215, pl. vi. Anti, Monumenti Antichi, XXVI, 1920, p. 568, fig. 29. 
Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 62, fig. 65. 


The head is from a statue of Hermes, as is proved by other replicas of 
the same original which have the well-known attributes of that divinity ; 
the omission of the upper part of the skull and the working of the top sur- 
face are also best accounted for by the theory that it was covered by the 
petasos, or pointed cap, of Hermes. The remains of the neck show that 
the head was inclined slightly forward and toward the right shoulder. 

The face is of the square shape characteristic of the works of Poly- 
kleitos, with a broad, low forehead and a broad jaw narrowing down to a 
delicate chin. The hair forms a thick mass over the front of the skull, with 
irregular, wavy locks sharply incised upon it. The forehead shows un- 
usually detailed modelling, the prominence of the glabella being especially 
noteworthy. The line of the brows is sharp, and just below the ridge there 
is an incised line, as if to mark the lower limits of the hair. The upper eye- 
lids droop somewhat, and the lower lids are marked off from the cheeks 
by a crease. The eyeballs are flat. An incised line running along each eye- 
lid near the rim is apparently a detail taken over from the technique of the 


[140 ] 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


bronze original in which the lashes were inserted separately. The slightly 
parted lips are soft and full. 

The type of the face and the working of the hair are unmistakably 
Polykleitan, and the head was formerly included among the replicas of the 
Doryphoros. But, as Sieveking has pointed out, the attitude was different. 
In consequence of the downward gaze the eyes are less widely opened, 
resembling rather those of the Diadoumenos. The hair is also to be as- 
signed to a transitional stage between the Doryphoros and the later 





statue. In its general design and in the carving of the strands it closely 
resembles that of the former. But it stands out more from the skull, and 
the separate locks are more plastically rendered, thus showing an advance 
toward the still freer treatment on the Diadoumenos. 

The modelling, especially of the forehead and the lips, is so much more 
detailed than in most copies of Polykleitan heads that the work has been 
explained by one authority as a free version by a late Greek sculptor. But 
this view has been rightly rejected by Robinson, in the Annual Report, and 
by Sieveking, J. c., who regard the head as a remarkably close and reliable 
copy, reproducing in the marble many of the technical details of the bronze 
prototype. Convincing proof that it is a copy of a well-known Polykleitan 
statue is, moreover, afforded by the following series of replicas: the Hermes 


C141 J 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


Boboli in Florence (Arndt-Amelung, Hinzelaufnahmen, 103-105); a head 
of Hermes in Petrograd (Hermitage, no. 179); a head in Museo Torlonia, 
no. 475; perhaps also a head in Palazzo Riccardi, Florence (Hinzelaufnah- 
men, 300). The first two of these are characterised as Hermes by wings 
growing out of the top of the head. The petasos, which was worn by the 
present head, is like them an attribute added by the Graeco-Roman copy- 
ist. The best idea of the appearance of the original statue as a whole is 
given, according to Sieveking, by the bronze statuette from Annecy, in the 
Petit Palais, Paris (Sieveking, l. c. fig. 2). 


69. NupE Mate Torso 


Pentelic marble, of inferior quality. Height, 
1.20 m. 

Missing, the head, the right arm just below 
the shoulder, the left arm from the elbow, 
the right leg from the middle of the thigh, 
the left leg from above the knee, and the 
support, the attachment for which projects 
from the back of the right thigh. The sur- 
face is worn in places. 

Bought in Rome; said to have come from 
Venice. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 

Inv. 01.8190. Ann. Rep. 1901, p, 35. Chase, 
Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 63, fig. 66. 


The figure stood with the weight 
on the right leg, the left being 
Swung out somewhat to the side. 
The head was turned to its left, 
and the left arm was bent at the 
elbow. 

A Graeco-Roman work of aver- 
age merit, in the style of Polykleitos. 
It has not been identified as a rep- 
lica of any of his known statues. 





[ 142 ] 


ae 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


70. SratTuE oF HERMES 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.72 m. 

Missing, the top of the head, the arms from the elbows, the left leg from the hip, the right from the 
upper part of the thigh. A dowel-hole is in the break in the right arm. On the right thigh is 
a fragment of the support which connected the arm with the body. The top of the head is a 
carefully smoothed surface, showing that the missing part was made separately, and cemented 
on. The wings above the temples are broken off. The front of the body is partly covered by 





a hard, calcareous deposit. This has been removed from the face, neck and parts of the chest 
by means of acid, which has corroded and discolored portions of the surface. 

From the neighborhood of Capua. 

Catharine Page Perkins Collection, 1895. 

Inv. 95.67. Ann. Rep. 1895, p. 19, no. 1. Mahler, Polyklet, p. 138, fig. 44. Reinach, Répertoire 
II, p. 488, 3. Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, V, p. 54, pl. xxtv. Chase, Greek and Roman 
Sculpture, p. 148, fig. 176. 


The nude figure, represented somewhat under life-size, stood with the 
weight on the right leg; the left knee was slightly advanced and bent, and 
the foot was probably drawn back in the Polykleitan pose. The head is 


[ 143 |] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


inclined forward and to the right. The right shoulder is lowered, and the 
right arm hung close to the body, as is shown by the puntello on the hip. 
The left arm was drawn back, and bent at the elbow. 

The torso is of a massive, athletic type, with the pectoral muscles and 
those above the hips strongly accentuated, as in the works of Polykleitos. 
The head is too small for the body, and the neck incongruously slender. 
The face is a long oval, narrowing down to a small, pointed chin; the 
eyelids are not especially prominent; the lips are slightly parted. A rem- 
iniscence of the style of Polykleitos appears again in the rendering of the 
small, curly locks of hair. 

A clue to the interpretation of the statue is afforded by the pair of small 
wings, now broken off, which grew out of the hair, high above the temples. 
Wings appear in a similar position on the well-known bronze head of 
Hypnos in the British Museum. They occur also on numerous Graeco- 
Roman statues of Hermes (cf. the examples cited by Sieveking, Jahrbuch 
XXIV, 1909, p. 2). For the present statue the second of these names is to 
be preferred. It probably represents Hermes Psychopompos, the Conduc- 
tor of Souls; and, like several other extant statues of Hermes, it may be 
supposed to have stood as a monument over a grave. A quiet melancholy 
is expressed by the inclination of the head and the lowered gaze. The god 
probably held the kerykeion, or herald’s staff, in his right hand. 


71. Heap or a YouTH 


Parian marble. Height, 0.29 m.; length of face, 0.177 m. 

The tip of the nose and the right half of the mouth are restored in marble. Otherwise in perfect 
condition. 

Probably found in Italy. Purchased from Dr. Philip Nelson, by whom it had been acquired in 
Bath at the sale of the collection of Captain Maignac, who had inherited it from his father-in- 
law, the artist Walton. 

Francis Bartlett Collection, 1903. 

Inv. 03.746. Ann. Rep. 1903, p. 57, no. 4. HE. A. Gardner, J.H.S. XVIII, 1898, pp. 141 ff., pl. x1. 
Brunn-Bruckmann-Arndt, Denkméler, 544, with comment by Bulle. Gardner, Six Greek Sculp- 
tors, p. 130, pl. xxxrx. Dehn, Jahrbuch, XXVII, 1912, pp. 203 ff., Beilage figs. 5-8. Sieve- 
king and Buschor, Miinchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, VII, 1912, pp. 183 ff., fig. 18. 
Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 148, fig. 174. 


The head is inclined toward the right shoulder and the gaze is directed 


downward. The face is of a long oval shape, fairly broad at the forehead, 
and receding rapidly toward the narrow chin. The top of the skull is flat, 


[ 144] 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


rather than round. The forehead has a horizontal depression, below which 
it swells out prominently. The eyes are small, and not set deeply under the 
brows; the lids are heavy. The nose is long, and the lips are full. The hair 
is treated as an irregular mass of large curls elaborately worked out in 
detail. 

There has been a wide divergence of opinion in regard to the style and 
technique of this head. Until recently it was supposed to be an unusually 





exact Graeco-Roman copy of a fifth century bronze statue of the Argive 
school. The face has a certain resemblance to that of the Capitoline 
Amazon, which Furtwingler has assigned to Kresilas (Masterpieces of 
Greek Sculpture, p. 132). The free arrangement of the hair is paralleled on 
a bronze head in Naples (Brunn-Bruckmann, Denkmiiler, 339) as well as 
on the bronze head from Beneventum in the Louvre which is an original 
of the late fifth century (ibid. 324; Reinach, Recueil de tétes antiques, pl. 
72). Gardner assigns the work to one of the immediate followers of Poly- 


[145 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


kleitos. On the other hand Dehn has pointed out that the locks of hair, 
though more schematically executed, are arranged almost exactly as on the 
Ares Ludovisi and other allied heads which go back to fourth century 
originals. Moreover Sieveking and Buschor see in it no trace of bronze 
technique, but rather a mechanical reproduction in the marble of the 
technique of a terra-cotta model. Whatever may be thought of this latter 
theory, the resemblance to the Ares Ludovisi shows that this head cannot 
be accepted as an uncontaminated copy of a fifth century type. 


72. SMALL FEMALE Torso 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.21 m. 

Missing, the head, the body below the waist, the right arm from the elbow, the left arm from 
below the shoulder. There is a dowel-hole in the neck. 

Bought in Rome. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 

Inv. 01.8203. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 70, fig. 79. 





The woman appears to have been seated, or half reclining, with her 
weight partly supported by her left arm. Her right arm was bent slightly 
at the elbow, and the hand was extended. She wears an Ionic chiton of 
thin, clinging material which has slipped down from her right shoulder. 

The style and arrangement of the diaphanous drapery show that the 
figure was inspired by a work of the Attic school in the late fifth 


century B.C. 
[ 146 ] 


0 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


73. HEAD oF AN ATHLETE: REPLICA OF THE MunicH OILPOURER 


Pentelic marble. Height, about 0.23 m.; distance from root of hair to mouth, 0.12 m. 

Missing, the lower part of the head, the line of the fracture running from below the occiput to 
below the mouth. Otherwise in good preservation. Parts of the hair and the left side of the 
face are covered with incrustation. 

From Athens. Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1904. 

Inv. 04.11. Ann. Rep. 1904, p.57, no. 9. Furtwangler, Beschreibung der Glyptothek, no. 302, p. 333. 
Brunn-Bruckmann-Arndt, Denkméiler, 557, with discussion by Sieveking. 


The head belongs to a replica of a statue which is best known through a 
fairly complete copy in Munich. This shows a youthful athlete preparing 





to rub his body with oil. ‘In the right hand, which was raised above his 
head, he held a small oil jug (aryballos) from which he poured the oil in a 
long stream into the hollow of his left hand which was pressed against his 
body. As in the case of the Apoxyomenos and other statues of athletes, 
the motive is selected from the everyday life of the gymnasium.” * The 
head is bent forward strongly, with the gaze fixed on the left hand. 

1 Robinson, Cat. of Casts, no. 527, p. 239. 


p47 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


The high, rounded form of the skull shows that the work is to be as- 
signed to the Attic rather than the Argive school. The forehead is low and 
very prominent, especially in the central portion. The eyes are set deeply; 
they are not widely opened, and have heavy, sharply carved lids. The out- 
line of the brows meets the nose in a gradual curve. The nose is broad at 
its root, and delicate at the tip, with well dilated nostrils. The lips are 
slightly parted. The cheeks are full. The short, thick hair grows in small, 
irregular curls. 

The dating of the lost original furnishes a difficult problem which can- 
not yet be regarded as having received a satisfactory solution. Brunn saw 
a resemblance to the Marsyas of Myron in the pose and the way in which 
a momentary action is portrayed. The rather hard modelling of the torso 
also recalls the period of Myron. On the other hand the head is treated in a 
distinctly later style. Furtwiangler, therefore, ascribes the statue tenta- 
tively to a follower of Myron, perhaps his son Lykios who was active about 
440 B.c. (Masterpieces, p. 259). But this dating is still much too early to 
account for the style of the head, which is closely related to that of the 
Hermes of Praxiteles, as Kekulé has pointed out (Uber den Kopf des praxi- 
teluschen Hermes). The problem is further complicated by the fact that 
replicas exist of two other statues representing the same motive with some 
variations — one of Attic, the other of Polykleitan style (cf. Furtwangler, 
Masterpieces, p. 259). 

The original from which the statue in Munich and the present head are 
derived is known also through the following other replicas: a torso in 
Palazzo Mattei, Rome (Matz-Duhn, 1025; Clarac, 940B, 2398A); a torso 
in Dresden (Arch. Anz. IX, 1894, p. 26, no. 6); a very much restored 
replica in Palazzo Pitti, Florence (Diitschke, no. 25); a replica in Palazzo 
Strozzi, Florence (mentioned in Beschreibung der Glyptothek, p. 333). Our 
head is of excellent workmanship. Though on the whole it corresponds 
closely with the head of the Munich oilpourer, there are some differences 
in details which have been noted by Sieveking: ‘The mouth is fuller, the 
cheeks are fleshier, the brows are not so sharply drawn, the eyes are more 
deeply set, the bony structure of the forehead not so prominent.” The 
locks of the hair are also carved in a more sketchy, impressionistic manner. 
These differences suggest, in the opinion of Sieveking, that the head is a 


[ 148 ] 


Ve ———— 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


free copy, executed in the second century B.c., while the statue in Munich 
is a copy of the Augustan period, reproducing more faithfully, but more 
mechanically, the features of the bronze original. 


74. Heap or HERAKLES 


Fine-grained Greek marble. Height, 0.33 m. 

The nose is restored in plaster. Part of the right ear is broken off, and some locks of the hair are 
rubbed. 

Catharine Page Perkins Collection, 1897. 

Inv. 97.287. Ann. Rep. 1897, p. 20, no. 3. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 90, fig. 103. 





This head is from: a statue of Herakles, representing the hero, as is 
shown by more complete replicas, standing in an attitude of repose, with 
his weight partly on his right leg, and partly supported by his club, the 
end of which is propped against his arm-pit. The head was inclined a little 
towards the left shoulder, and turned in that direction. 


[ 149 J 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


The type of the face is suggestive of great physical rather than intellec- 
tual force; yet it is not lacking in nobility, and shows none of the tendency 
to brutality which characterises some later types of Herakles. The hair 
and beard grow in short, thick curls, which are carved more in detail on the 
front than on the back of the head. A row of tiny locks rises straight up 
from the forehead. The locks of the beard are worked out deeply with the 
help of the drill. The forehead is broad and low, with a pronounced swell- 
ing of the frontal bone below the horizontal depression. The widely opened 
eyes have their corners very deeply set and a heavy bar of flesh at the outer 
corners. The ears show the swollen cartilage characteristic especially of 
boxers, but given also to certain mythological personages renowned for 
physical prowess: cf. for example the statuette of Herakles, no. 64, and 
the head of Diomedes, no. 67. 

The most complete replica of the statue is in the Glyptotek Ny Carls- 
berg, Billedtavler, 250. A second replica of the head is in the same collec- 
tion, no. 251. A headless replica is in Dresden, and another with the head 
restored is in Villa Borghese (Arndt-Amelung, Hinzelaufnahmen, 132). 
Arndt mentions also a statue in Museo Torlonia, no. 56, with an ancient 
head, and a statuette in the same collection with a restored head, no. 214. 

The number of replicas testifies to the fame which the prototype en- 
joyed in antiquity. It is probably to be dated in the second half of the 
fourth century B.c., but the sculptor has not been identified. The style of 
the head, especially the treatment of the eyes, shows that he was strongly 
under the influence of Skopas. Robinson, in the Annual Report, has noted 
also a resemblance to the head of the Lateran Sophokles, the original of 
which is dated between 350 and 330 B.c. 


75. Heap or A YoOuTH 


Pentelic marble. Height, 0.255 m.; length of face, 0.152 m. 

Broken at the base of the neck. The end of the nose is missing, the right ear is injured, 
and the left side of the face and neck are encrusted. 

From Rome. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 

Inv. 01.8204. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 91, fig. 104. 


The figure to which this head belonged was evidently shown in vigorous 
action, the body leaning forward to the right, while the head was sharply 


[150 J 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


turned to the left. Strong emotion is expressed by the upward gaze of the 
deep set, widely opened eyes, by the dilated nostrils and by the parted lips. 
The suggestion has been made that the fragment is from a replica of one of 
the figures of the famous group of Niobe and her children. In pose it re- 





sembles the head of the Niobid in Florence, Amelung, Fihrer durch die 
Antiken in Florenz, no. 181, p. 123 (Brunn-Bruckmann, Denkmédiler, 
pl. 315 b). The correspondence in details is not striking, though this could 
hardly be expected in view of the inferior execution of the Florence replica. 

Not only in its strongly emotional quality but also in many stylistic 
details the work is closely related to the heads from the pediments of the 
temple of Athena Alea at Tegea, on which our knowledge of the art of 
Skopas is based. The formation of the forehead, with its great prominence 


pis | 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


in the centre, the shape and setting of the eyes, with their inner corners 
very deeply sunk and their outer corners almost hidden by heavy rolls of 
flesh, the way in which the upper row of teeth shows between the parted 
lips, the sketchy rendering of the short, curly locks of hair, the broad pro- 
portions of the face — these are all characteristics paralleled in the Tegea 
heads. The chief differences are that the contour of the jaw is less angular, 
the skull more rounded at the crown and less deep from front to back. 

The head is probably to be classed as a Graeco-Roman copy, though it is 
far superior to the majority of such works as regards execution and fidelity 
to the style of Skopas. 


76. STATUETTE OF AN ATHLETE HOLDING A STRIGIL 


Fine-grained, translucent Greek marble. Height of the figure, 0.679 m.; total height, 0.715 m. 

The figure was found in nine pieces which have been put together without restoration. All the 
fractures fit well, and the only losses are a piece at the junction of the neck and shoulder, the 
middle portion of the strigil, and parts of the fingers of the left hand. 

Found in 1896 below Villa Mondragone, at Frascati. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1900. 

Inv. 00.304. Ann. Rep. 1900, p. 25, no. 1. Notizie degli scavi, 1897, p. 458. Hartwig, Berliner 
philologische Wochenschrift, XVII, 1897, pp. 30 ff. Idem, Jahreshefte, IV, 1901, pp. 151-159, 
pls. v, vi. Reinach, Répertoire III, p. 153, 9. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 147, 
rae Wee 
The nude youth stands with his weight on the right leg, while the left 

is slightly advanced and swung out, with the heel raised from the ground. 

A tree-trunk is placed beside the left leg as a support. His head is inclined 

downward and somewhat to his left, looking at the strigil, whose handle is 

held in his right hand, while the curved blade is between the thumb and 
fingers of his left. He is engaged in removing the dirt from the instrument 
with his thumb, an operation illustrated on several Attic vase paintings 

(Cf. Hartwig, Jahreshefte, 1. c. figs. 178-181). His hair is carved in irreg- 

ular, short locks; a row of small curls rises vertically above the forehead. 
The statuette is a Graeco-Roman copy of a well-known type which was 

reproduced not only in statues in the round, but also on Roman gems. A 

statue in the Uffizi Palace, Florence (Bloch, Rém. Mitt. VII, 1892, p. 81, 

pl. m1) and one in the Vatican, Braccio Nuovo, 105 (Amelung, Katalog, 

vol. I, p. 119, pl. xvir) are probably derived from the same original. A 

fragmentary bronze statue, found at Ephesus and now in Vienna, is closely 


[ 152 ] 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


related, but differs slightly in motive: the athlete is there scraping his left 
wrist with the strigil. The original has been ascribed to a sculptor of the 
fourth century. Hauser, Jahreshefte, V, 1902, p. 214, suggests that the 
Ephesian statue may be one of the pueri duo destringentes se by Daidalos, 





son of Patrokles and probably a grandson of Polykleitos, mentioned by 
Pliny, V. H. XXXIV, 76. According to another theory recently advanced 
by A. Maviglia (L’ Attivita artistica di Lisippo ricostruita su nuova base), 
the type is to be identified with the Apoxyomenos of Lysippos. 


[ 153 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


77. STATUE OF A Boy 


Pentelic marble. Height, as restored, not including plinth, 1.275 m.; length of face, 0.137 m. 

Restored, the plinth, with the tree-trunk which serves as a support, the left foot and ankle, the right 
foot and leg below the knee, and the tip of the nose. The arms are missing from just below 
the shoulders. The surface of the face is somewhat worn, and parts of the body are covered 
with incrustation. 

From Rome. Said to have been found in the Tiber. 

Catharine Page Perkins Collection, 1897. 

Inv. 97.285. Ann. Rep. 1897, p. 18, no. 1. Klein, Praziteles, p. 367. The same, Prazitelische 
Studien, pp. 1-88, 5 figures. 


The nude figure of a boy of about 
twelve years of age is represented stand- 
ing with his weight chiefly on his left 
leg, which is advanced and slightly bent 
at the knee. His body leans far forward 
and his head is lifted, an animated ex- 
pression being given to the face by the 
widely opened eyes and parted lips. 
The arms were held forward, as is shown 
by the remains on the thighs of marble 
supports for the forearms. The hair is 
drawn up from the forehead in wavy 
locks, and gathered into a knot on the 
crown of the head. 

The attitude of the figure is similar 
to that of the two bronze statues of boys 
from Herculaneum in the Museum at 
Naples, except that the feet are not so 
far apart, and the weight more unevenly 
distributed. He appears to be prepar- 
ing to run. Because of the feminine 
character of the face, Robinson, in the 
Annual Report, calls him a young Apollo. Klein prefers to identify him 
as a victorious boy athlete, and suggests that he may have held jumping 
weights in his hands. He points out the close resemblance of the head, 
especially in the arrangement of the hair, to that of a statue of Kore in 
Vienna (Von Schneider, Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des 


[ 154] 





GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


aller hichsten Kaiserhauses, XVI, 1895, p. 139, pls. x, x1) and to that 
of a statue of Apollo which exists in numerous replicas, the best being 
in the Palazzo Vecchio at Florence (Brunn-Bruckmann, Denkmédler, pl. 
618); and he ascribes the originals of all three statues, on insufficient 
grounds, to the younger Kephisodotos, an immediate follower of Praxiteles. 

The work is a Roman copy; and the original was probably of bronze, 
judging from the tree-trunk and the supports on the thighs. 


78. Heap or APHRODITE 





Coarse-grained, Greek marble. Height, 0.37 m.; length of face, 0.22 m. 

Missing, the top of the head, which was made separately. The joint runs obliquely downward from 
front to back along the line of the fillet. The two pieces were held together by a mortise and 
tenon. The hollow eye sockets and an injury on the left cheek have been filled with plaster. 
The surface of the marble is corroded. 

Formerly at Broadlands, later in the possession of Lord Ronald Gower. 

Catharine Page Perkins Collection, 1896. 

Inv. 96.694. Ann. Rep. 1896, p. 21, no. 3. Michaelis, Ancient Marbles in Great Britain, p. 218, 
no. 6. Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, I, pl. vt, p. 718. Klein, Praziteles, p. 347, figs. 66, 
67. Reinach, Recueil de tétes antiques, pl. 137. 


The head is bound with a fillet, below which the hair is carried to the 


sides in slightly waved strands coming down low over the temples and 


[155 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


covering the tips of the ears. Some locks, escaping from the knot at the 
back, fall upon the nape of the neck. The face is of a long oval shape, the 
features modelled in large, simple curves. The forehead is high and 
rounded toward the front. The eyes are not widely opened nor set very 
deeply under the slightly arched brows. In the profile view the nose, which 
is intact, is set at an angle to the forehead. It has a broad bridge and 
delicate tip. The lips are slightly parted; the chin is heavy. 

The designation of the head as Aphrodite is based upon a general re- 
semblance in coiffure and type of face to Praxitelean representations of 
that goddess. Though somewhat empty of expression it has a certain 
grandeur and severe beauty which suggest that the original from which it 
is derived was related to the earlier works of Praxiteles, such as the Aphro- 
dite of Arles. 


79, 80. Heap anp Torso or APHRODITE 


Coarse-grained, fully crystalline Greek marble. Height of the torso, 1.125m. Height of the head, 
0.295 m.; length of the face, 0.191 m. 

The statue was formerly completely restored. The modern portions of the body have been removed, 
except for plaster filling some holes in the surface. The head has also been detached from the 
torso, as the neck was modern, and the connec- 
tion between the two not certain. The top of 
the head is worked separately, and is probably 
modern. The nose, the lower lip and the end 
of the chin are restored. The figure now consists 
of the body, including a small part of the right 
arm, the left leg to just below the knee, with a 
piece of the dolphin's tail attached to it, and 
the upper half of the right thigh. The left arm 
was apparently broken off at its junction with 
the shoulder, and the shoulder itself was cut into 
by the restorer. Parts of the surface have been 
worn, or rubbed down. 

From Gabii. Formerly in Palazzo Valentini at Rome. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1899. / 

Inv. 99.350 (torso) 99.351 (head). Ann. Rep. 1899, 
p. 28, no. 6. Beschreibung Roms, III, 3, p. 156. 
Stark, Sdchsische Berichte, 1860, p. 59,10. Matz- 
Duhn, Antike Bildwerke in Rom, I, no. 755, 
Bernoulli, Aphrodite, p. 230, no. 24. Reinach, 
Gazette des beaux arts, 1909, vol. I, p. 200. 





The torso is one of the numerous examples of the type known as “‘ Venus 
Pudica.” The nude figure stands with its weight supported by the left leg; 


[156 J 


ee ee 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


she bends forward slightly; her head was turned to the left; her right hand 
was held before her breast, her left before the lower part of her body. A 
product of the school of Praxiteles in the Hellenistic period, adapted from 





the Aphrodite of Knidos, this type attained great popularity in Roman 
times. More than sixty replicas are cited by Bernoulli, varying widely 
among themselves, from the Capitoline Aphrodite, a figure larger than 
life, with mature forms realistically modelled, which has been held to be a 
Hellenistic original of the Alexandrian school, to the Venus dei Medici, a 
Graeco-Roman work, under life-size, of more delicate proportions and more 
elegant in its gestures. The present example is closer to the Capitoline 
than to the Medici statue. It is noteworthy for the skillful treatment of the 


[157 J 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


soft, elastic texture of the skin, and the clear and simplified rendering of 
the divisions of the torso. The breasts are rather clumsily modelled, and 
the back is neglected. 


The head is decidedly inferior to the torso, and may not have originally 
belonged to it. 


81. SmaLtt Heap or APHRODITE 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.21 m.; length of face, 0.125 m. 

The top of the head, which is missing, was worked separately, the joint coming at the edge of the 
fillet. The nose is injured, and some incrustation has been left on the right side. 

Gift of C. S. Houghton, 1901. 

Inv. 01.8200. 


The head is inclined and turned towards the left shoulder. The hair is 
bound by a fillet; it is parted over the middle of the forehead, and carried 





to the sides in wavy locks which are rather mechanically worked with the 
help of the drill; the back hair is gathered into a knot on the nape of the 
neck, with one strand escaping at either side. The upper eyelids are heavy, 
the mouth small, the lips slightly parted in a smile. 

A Graeco-Roman work of Praxitelean type. 


[158 |] 


Ce 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


82. HEAD oF A GODDESS 


Greek marble. Height, 0.29m. Length of face, 0.15 m. 

Most of the nose is broken away, and there are other slighter injuries. 
Said to have been found at Alexandria. 

Gift of Edward W. Forbes, 1907. 

Inv. 07.487. Ann. Rep. 1907, p. 51. M. F. A. Bulletin VI, 1908, p. 1. 


The goddess wears a stephane; below this the hair, parted over the 
middle of the forehead, is carried back in heavy, wavy strands covering 





the tips of the ears, and gathered in a large knot at the back of the neck. 
The face, broad in the upper part, contracts below to the small chin. The 
eyes are large, with lids very little accentuated. The lips are parted. 


[ 159 J 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


83. Foot or A MAN 


Fine-grained marble. Length of foot, 0.295 m.; greatest length of fragment, 0.37 m. 

Broken off above the ankle; most of the little toe is missing. The plinth, which is 4.7 em. thick, is 
broken off except at the front and at the inner side of the foot for a distance of 14.5 em. from 
the front, showing that it was of irregular shape. To the right of the heel is a piece of marble 
projecting upward from the surface of the plinth; and in front of this projection are the 
remains of a large dowel-hole. 

Bought in Rome. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund. 

Inv. 01.8217. 


A man’s right foot, life-size, without sandal. The shape of the plinth 
and the position of the foot show that the figure was represented in lively 





action, with the right foot advanced, the lower leg inclined outward some- 
what and strongly bent at the knee. The traces at the right side indicate 
that some object is to be restored here. 

The clear and simple rendering of the structure of the foot and ankle- 
bone, with suppression of all superfluous detail, suggests that the original 
was a statue of the fifth century. 


[ 160 ] 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


84. Foot oF a MAN 


Fine-grained marble. Length, 0.20 m. 

Missing, the rear part of the foot from the instep, and the little toe. The plinth, which is 5 cm. 
thick, is broken off on all sides. 

Bought in Rome. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 

Inv. 01.8216. 


The forepart of an old man’s right foot, life-size, without sandal. The 
realistic modelling of the bony structure and the careful indication of the 





veins suggest that the fragment is from a statue of the Hellenistic period, 
or from a copy of such a work. 


85. Portrair Heap oF A GREEK 


Coarse-grained, Greek marble. Height, as restored, 0.49 m.; height of the bead from the lower ex- 
tremity of the beard, 0.39 m. 

Restored, the herm-bust with half of the neck, the lower part of the nose, a piece of the fillet on 
the right side, and part of the hair above it. Missing, the lobe of the left ear. Portions of the 
surface of the face and beard have been cleaned. 

Formerly in Palazzo Fondi, Naples. Said to be from Herculaneum. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1899. 

Inv. 99.342. Ann. Rep. 1899, p. 30, no. 7. 


The head, which was probably set on a herm, is turned to the left with 
the eyes looking slightly upward. It represents an elderly man, bearded, 


[161 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


with a broad, full face, small eyes and slightly parted lips. A deep furrow 
separates the upper and lower halves of the forehead, and there are lines in 
the brow between the eyes and at their outer corners. The hair is confined 
by a thick, round fillet, from under which short locks fall upon the forehead 





and neck. The details of these as well as of the locks of the beard are 
worked rather mechanically with the help of the drill. 

The fillet shows that this is the portrait of a Greek philosopher or poet, 
but the subject has not been identified. The arrangement of the hair and 
beard resembles closely that on the head of the Sophocles in the Lateran, 
suggesting that the original is to be assigned to the second half of the 
fourth century B.c. Like many of the marble portrait heads from Hercu- 
laneum, the work is a carefully executed, but lifeless Roman copy. 


[ 162 |] 


ae 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


86. Portrait Bust or MENANDER (?) 


Fine-grained, Italian marble. Height, 0.515 m.; length of face, 0.196. 

Missing, the tip of the nose. The surface on the right side of the face is worn and corroded. 

From the neighborhood of Torre Annunziata. 

Catharine Page Perkins Collection, 1897. 

Inv. 97.288. Ann. Rep. 1897, p. 20, no. 4. Bernoulli, Griechische Ikonographe, II, p. 113, no. 18, 
pl. xtv. Delbriick, Antike Portrdts, pl. xx. Hekler, Greek and Roman Portraits, pls. 106, 107. 
Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 131, fig. 163. 


The bust is in the form of a herm; the neck is inclined towards the left 
shoulder, and the head is turned slightly to the right. It portrays a man 





still in the prime of life, but with an expression of sadness and weariness, 
perhaps to be explained as due to ill-health. He has thick hair carved in 
large, straggling locks. The clean-shaven face is lean. The forehead is 
prominent at its base, the eyes deep-set, with drooping upper lids. The 
nose, which continues the line of the brow, has a slightly curved profile. 
Deep lines running from the wings of the nose separate the mouth with its 
slightly parted lips from the cheeks. The Adam’s apple is prominent. 


[ 163 J 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


The portrait, which exists in numerous replicas, was formerly errone- 
ously identified as Pompey. It is now generally held to be that of the 
Greek comic poet Menander (342-291 8.c.). The theory was first ad- 
vanced by Studniczka, whose argument is summarised by Bernoulli, loc. cit. 
It is founded chiefly on the resemblance to a marble imago clipeata in 
Marbury Hall which is inscribed with the name of Menander. But, as 





Bernoulli remarks, the evidence is far from conclusive. If it be accepted, 
the replicas probably are derived from the statue of Menander by the sons 
of Praxiteles which stood in the theatre at Athens. } 

Of the eighteen certain replicas cited by Bernoulli, two, besides the 
present example, are now in America. The head in Philadelphia (Uni- 
versity of Pennsylvania, The Museum Journal, V, 1914, p. 122, fig. 68) and 
the head in the possession of Mrs. E. D. Brandegee (M. F’. A. Bulletin XI, 
1913, p. 46, fig. 3) are nos. 15 and 11 in Bernoulli’s list. 


[ 164 ] 


a, a a ee 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


87. STATUETTE OF HANGING MARSYAS 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.59 m. 

Missing, the head, the arms, the legs from just below the knees, the tail (which was visible at the 
left side), the upper and lower parts of the tree-trunk. The head was refastened in antiquity by 
a dowel which was leaded through a pour-channel 
from the right side of the neck. 

Bought in Rome. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 

Inv. 01.8195. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 
124, fig. 152. 


This is a replica of the well-known rep- 
resentation of the satyr Marsyas sus- 
pended against the trunk of a tree, and 
about to be flayed alive as a punishment 
for having challenged Apollo to a musical 
contest. The original, a life-size statue, 
probably belonged to a group including 
a seated Apollo and the crouching figure 
of a Scythian slave whetting his knife. A 
copy of the latter — the famous Arrotino 
—jis preserved in Florence. In the present 
replica of the Marsyas the details of the 
body structure, which are accentuated by 
the strained position of the figure, are very 
realistically rendered; the muscles of the 
legs, for example, appear as plainly as on 
an anatomical model. Veins are indicated 
on the sides of the body and the abdomen, 
and there is a tuft of hair on the breast. 

The group has been assigned to the earlier Pergamene school of sculp- 
ture. The figure of Marsyas was especially popular in Roman times, and 
exists in numerous copies, large and small, including several in Phrygian 
marble. Cf. Amelung, Fiihrer durch die Antiken in Florenz, p. 62, and the 
same in Helbig, Fuhrer *, I, p. 539, no. 951, where the replicas and the litera- 
ture on the subject are cited. Cf. also Robinson, Museum of Fine Arts, 
Catalogue of Casts, no. 553 (a torso in Concord, N. H.). Amelung distin- 


£165 | 





penis 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


guishes the replicas in Phrygian marble from those in white marble, 
supposing the former to be derived from the Pergamene group, the latter 
from a slightly earlier statue; but this theory has not been generally 
accepted (cf. Furtwangler, Beschreibung der Glyptothek ?, no, 280, p. 301). 


88. STATUETTE OF HANGING 
MARsyAs 


Greek marble. Height, 0.405 m. 


Missing, the head, both arms, the right shoulder, the 
right leg from the upper part of the thigh, the 
left leg from the knee. The tree-trunk has been 
worked off. There are dowel-holes for the attach- 
ment of the head, the right arm, and both legs. 


Bought in Rome. 
Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 
Inv. 01.8196. 


The subject is the same as that of the 
preceding statuette, but there are some 
differences in treatment. The ribs and 
the abdominal muscles are strongly de- 
fined, but rendered more schematically, 
as if in imitation of the archaic style. 
The muscles of the legs are not exagger- 
ated, as on the other replica. These 
variations are to be ascribed to the 
copyist: the work is probably a free 
version of the Pergamene statue, which 
is more faithfully reproduced by the 
larger statuette. 





[ 166 ] 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


89. SmaLtL MALE Torso 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.20 m. 


Missing, the head with the neck, both arms, the 
whole of the right leg, and the left leg from the 
upper part of the thigh. 


Formerly in the Alfred Greenough Collection, lent 
to the Museum since 1885. 


Bequest of Charles H. Parker, 1908. 
Inv. 08.249. 


The figure stood with the weight on 
the left leg; the torso is inclined and 
twisted slightly towards its left side. 
A fragment of drapery falls along the 
left thigh. On the right hip is a project- 
ing bit of marble, perhaps a support for 
the arm. The action and the designa- 
tion of the muscular figure remain un- 
explained. 





90. DousLE Herm: HEeRAKLES AND HEBE 





[ 167 J 


Fine-grained Greek marble. Height, 
0.19 m. 


Broken off at the neck. The ends of 
the noses of both heads are broken 
off, and there are other slight in- 
juries. The right side of the face 
of Herakles is incrusted. 


Bought in Rome. 
Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 
Inv. 01.8197. 


Herakles is represented 
as bearded, and with short, 
curly hair, confined by a 
wreath. The details of the 
beard are worked out with 
the drill. The forehead has 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


a deep, horizontal depression, and swells out strongly in the lower 
part. The lips are slightly parted. The type is that of the statues 





in the Museo Chiaramonti of the Vatican (Amelung, Katalog, I, p. 738, 
pl. 79; Furtwangler, Masterpieces, p. 341, figs. 146, 147) and in Villa 
Albani (Furtwangler, ibid. fig. 145) which Furtwangler ascribes to 
Praxiteles. 

Hebe is crowned with a wreath of ivy; her hair is parted over the 
middle of the forehead, and carried to the sides in wavy locks. The 
regular oval shape of the face and the treatment of the eyelids recall 
slightly the head, no. 17; the type is possibly derived from a statue of 
the late fifth century. 

A work of the neo-Attic school. 


91. SMALL Heap or A YOUTH 


Greek marble. Height, 0.155 m. 
Apparently cut from a relief. The back is a smooth surface. The bridge of the nose and part of 
the top of the cap are restored in plaster. An iron dowel is in the neck. 


Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1900. 
Inv. 00.306. Ann. Rep. 1900, p. 28, no. 7. 


[ 168 ] 


a a 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


The head is executed in high relief, almost full-front, but turned slightly 
to its left. The youth wears a Phrygian cap, the cloth forming heavy folds 





at the ide The hair falls in thick curls on the forehead and the side of the 
face, covering the ears. The eyeballs are hollowed out roughly. 


92. SMALL Hap 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.14 m. 

Broken from a small statue. The neck is preserved at the back and the right side. The nose has 
been restored in plaster. The hand is broken across the middle of the palm. Two of the fingers 
and a lock of the hair are slightly injured. On the right side of the knot of hair is a small flat 
surface with a cylindrical dowel-hole drilled in it, showing that something was attached there. 

Bought in Rome. 

Francis Bartlett Collection, 1903. 

Inv. 03.758. Ann. Rep. 1903, p. 59, no. 16. 

The statue of which this head is a fragment, was part of a group, for a 
left hand carved against the back of the head is placed in such a way that 
it must have belonged to a second figure. The head is inclined to the right. 
The type of the face is that of a smiling child faun, though the ears are 
human. The lips are parted, showing the upper row of teeth. The hair 1s 


worn long, and drawn back in wavy strands to the crown, where it is tied 


[ 169 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


in a loose knot. Two small locks escape from the mass, and fall on the 
forehead; similar pairs of locks are carved in front of the ears and on the 
nape of the neck. 

The head is probably from the figure of a maenad or a hermaphrodite 
which was grouped with a satyr. The type resembles that of the head 
placed on the hermaphrodite in the Malatesta group in Berlin (Beschrei- 
bung, no. 195; Clarac, 671, 1736). Cf. also the head in Berlin, no. 571, a 





head at Petworth, described by Michaelis, Ancient Marbles, p. 611, no. 32, 
a head in Venice, Reinach, Recueil de tétes antiques, pl. 264, and a head in 
Dresden, ibid. pls. 265, 266. 

The modelling is delicate, especially that of the hand and about the 
mouth. The hair is worked in great detail, the locks being separated by 
deep grooves skilfully hollowed out by means of a drill, and with smaller 
grooves carved upon them. 


[170 J 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


93. SMALL HEAD oF AN INFANT FAUN 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.115 m. 

Broken off at the top of the neck. The tip of one of the leaves of the wreath and the cluster of berries 
on the right side are missing. The nose and the right eyebrow are slightly injured. 

Bought in Rome. 

Francis Bartlett Collection, 1903. 

Inv. 03.762. Ann. Rep. 1903, p.59,no. 14. Klein, Jahreshefte, XIX, XX, 1919, p. 253ff., fig. 175. 





The head is that of an infant with short curly hair and pointed animal’s 
ears, wearing a wreath composed of ivy leaves and clusters of berries. It 
is inclined far to its left side; a troubled expression is given by the puck- 
ered brow and the lips. The surface of the flesh is highly polished. ° 


ivi] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


94. SMALL HEAD oF AN INFANT 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.09 m. 

Broken off at the top of the neck. One cluster of berries on the wreath has been restored in 
marble. The nose, the right eyebrow, 
and some of the berries are slightly 
injured. 

Bought in Rome. 

Francis Bartlett Collection, 1903. 


Inv. 03.761. Ann. Rep. 1903, p. 59, 
no. 15. Klein, Jahreshefte, XIX, XX, 
1919, p. 256, fig. 174. 


The head represents a smil- 
ing baby with short, curly hair, 
wearing a wreath of ivy leaves 
and clusters of berries. The 
tips of the ears are hidden. It 
is smaller than no. 93, but 
similar in style and execution. 





95. STATUETTE OF APHRODITE ADJUSTING HER SANDAL 


Palombino. Height, 0.114 m. 

Missing, the head, the left arm, the right hand, 
the right leg from above the knee, the left leg 
from below the knee, and a part of the drapery 
behind. 

Bought in Rome. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 

Inv. 01.8206. 


The figure is balanced on the right 
leg which is partly bent; she stoops 
slightly, and lifts her left foot in or- 
der to adjust her sandal. She is nude 
except for an himation, a fragment 
of which appears on her left shoulder. 
It fell down her back, and was carried 
over her right thigh, where a frag- 
ment of it is preserved. The back of 





GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


the figure is less carefully worked than the front. The folds of the drapery 
are sharply cut with a drill in the hard stone. 


96. STATUETTE OF APHRODITE 


Fine-grained white marble of a dull tone. Height, including plinth, 0.203 m. 

Missing, the head, the right arm, the left hand, and the tip of the dolphin’s tail. The right knee and 
the drapery on the left side are slightly injured. 

Found near Smyrna. 

Francis Bartlett Collection, 1903. 

Inv. 03.760. Ann. Rep. 1903, p. 59, no. 17. 


The nude figure stands with her weight on the left leg, the right knee 
being slightly bent, and the thighs pressed together. The arms are raised; 





the hands were drawing up the ends of the himation which hangs at her 
back. On the right shoulder is the end of a lock of hair, and another shows 
on her left forearm. A dolphin is placed, head downwards, on a rock at her 
left side. The surface of the marble is polished. 


[173 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


97. Smatt Heap or ATHENA 


Fine-grained, fully crystalline, white marble. Height, 0.153 m. 

Broken from a statuette. Missing, the tip of the nose, the tip of the chin, and both ends of the 
crest of the helmet. The surface of the garland and of the hair is worn. In both garland and 
hair are remains of a magenta-colored pigment. 

From Athens. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1900. 

Inv. 00.310. Ann. Rep. 1900, p. 27, no. 5. 


The head is turned sharply to the left, suggesting that the figure was 
represented in vigorous action. The goddess may have been advancing in 





a pose similar to that of a statuette from Epidauros in Athens (Nat. Mus., 
no. 274; ’Ed. ’Apx. 1886, pl. 12, left), but turned in the opposite direction. 
Cf. also a statuette in Berlin, Beschreibung der antiken Skulpturen, no. 74. 
She wears a helmet with a high crest and a garland bound around it. 
Small curls escape from under the helmet upon the forehead, and the hair 


[174] 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


falls in long locks at the sides, with traces of the use of the drill. The face 
is broad and round; the cheek-bones are prominent, the nose short, with 
dilated nostrils, the lips full and firmly pressed together. The eyes are 
wide open; and their lively expression is enhanced by the rendering of the 
pupils as round holes drilled in the marble. The surface of the flesh has a 
high polish. 

Judging from details of technique (the polished surface, the plastic 
indication of the pupils, the drill holes in the hair) the head is to be dated 
in the second century A.D. 


98. Cock 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.288 m.; length, 0.51 m. 

The head, the rear half of the tail, the left wing, the end of the right wing, and the legs are 
modern restorations, as is also the base. 

From Rome. 

Francis Bartlett Collection, 1903. 

Inv. 03.759. Ann. Rep. 1903, p. 59, no. 20. 





A cock represented life-size, bending forward, with head down. The 
attitude is life-like, the feathers are skilfully executed with a good deal of 
realistic detail. 


[175] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


99. RELIEF REPRESENTING THE DEATH OF PRIAM 


Fine-grained Greek marble. Height, 0.38 m.; width, 0.49 m.; thickness, 0.05 m. 

The back is rough, the edges partially smoothed. The upper right-hand corner is broken off; the 
surface is worn, and has been cleaned; the faces of Neoptolemos and Hekabe are injured. 

Found near Florence, below Fiesole. Formerly in Palazzo Panciatichi, Florence. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1904. 

Inv. 04.15. Ann. Rep. 1904, p. 56, no. 8. Gori, Inscr. Ant. III (1744), pp. 138, 148. Tischbein, Aus 
meinem Leben, ed. Schiller, II, p. 173. Dutschke, Zerstreute antike Bildwerke in Florenz, p. 242, 
no. 519. Bates, Hallisches Winckelmannsprogramm, p. 105, no. 579. Heydemann, Rém. Mitt. 
IIT, 1888, pp. 101 ff. pl. mz. Brunn-Bruckmann-Arndt, Denkmédler, pl. 607, with comment. by 
Arndt. Reinach, Répertoire des reliefs, II, p.199. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 149, 
fig. 177. The inscription is published in C.I.L., vol. XI, no. 1645. 


Neoptolemos, with his left foot braced on the top of the long, low altar 
on which the old king sits, is dragging him from it by the hair with his left 





hand, while the sword in his right is drawn back ready for the fatal blow. 
Hekabe, kneeling on the altar behind Priam, stretches out her arms in a 
frantic appeal for mercy. Neoptolemos is nude, save for a plumed helmet 
and a mantle which hangs behind him, its ends falling over his left arm and 
right knee. His large, round shield is carried on his left arm. Priam wears a 
Persian cap, a sleeveless chiton leaving his right shoulder bare, and an 
himation enveloping his legs. Hekabe is clothed in a Doric chiton with 


[176 ] 


¥ 
; 
t 
¥ 
& 
: 





GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


overfold and kolpos; an himation covers her legs, and is drawn up over 
the back of her head. 

At the close of the second or the beginning of the third century a.D. the 
relief was used by a Roman lady to decorate her tomb. She had carved 
upon the side of the altar the inscription, 


AVRELIASECVNDA 
SEVIVA: FECIT- SIBI: ET-SV 
IS 


“Aurelia Secunda in her lifetime made it for herself and her family.” 
An earlier inscription appears to have been cut away to make room for 
this. 

The work is a product of the neo-Attic school, made originally for a 
purely decorative purpose, though it later came to be used twice as a grave 
monument. The subject is dramatically conceived, and executed with 
vigor. Some resemblances to the frieze of the temple at Bassae in the com- 
position and the style of the drapery have been pointed out by Heyde- 
mann. The prototype may have been a relief, or perhaps a painting, of the 
late fifth century B.c. The carving, though good, is not of the quality of an 
original work of that period. The nondescript form of the crest of Neop- 
tolemos’ helmet and the indistinct rendering of the fastenings of his shield 
are cited by Arndt in favor of the later dating. He also notes that the 
figure of Neoptolemos recurs on the Amazon sarcophagus in Paris (Robert, 
Die Sarcophagreliefs, I1, 69b.). 


100. Retrer oF A WOMAN WITH A GARLAND 


Fine-grained, translucent marble. Height, 0.60 m.; width, 0.37 m. 

Missing, the upper part from the level of the woman’s waist. The block is triangular in plan; the 
two unsculptured faces are fairly smooth, and show dowel-holes for fastening to adjoining slabs. 
A large dowel-hole in the top of the fragment probably dates from an ancient repair. 

Purchased from the James Fund and by special contribution, 1910. 

Inv. 10.161. Ann. Rep. 1910, p. 59. M.F.A. Bulletin, IX, 1911, p. 52. Chase, Greek and Roman 
Sculpture, p. 152, fig. 182. 


The block is a part of a large base or altar, which seems to have been of 
polygonal shape, to judge from the thin plinth at the bottom which 
ends in a curve at the right and is cut off at an obtuse angle at the left. 
The fragment includes the lower half of the figure of a woman carved in 


p177 J 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


high relief, standing in profile to left, with her weight on the right leg, while 
the left is drawn back slightly with only the toes touching the ground. Her 
hands were presumably raised, holding up a garland, the lower end of which 
hangs before her. She wears a long Ionic chiton, its texture indicated by 
crinkly lines, and over it a peplos of heavier material reaching to the ankles, 





the upper part being doubled to form a diploidion which falls in elaborate 
folds to below the waist. The garland is composed of ivy leaves and berries 
with a fillet wound about them at intervals. 

The relief is a decorative work of the neo-Attic school, showing a mix- 
ture of the styles of earlier periods. The texture of the chiton and the con- 
ventional zigzag folds of the diploidion are imitated from sculptures of the 


[178 J 


Pe eT se ee ee 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


archaic Greek period. This treatment of the drapery is in strong contrast 
to the free pose of the left leg and the characteristically Roman treatment 
of the wreath. 


101. TRIANGULAR PEDESTAL OF A CANDELABRUM 


Pentelic marble. Height, without the plinth and cap, 1.035 m. Height of the figures, 0.465 m. 

The plinth and the cap are modern. The ends of the acanthus leaves, the corners of the moulding 
beneath them, and the forelegs of the griffins are broken off. The injuries to the figures in the 
panels are as follows: A, the right hand and the greater part of the right lower leg missing; 
the thigh has been split off and replaced. B, the right leg missing; the nose injured. C, the 
front of the head, the right hand, the left forearm (dowel-hole in break) and the left knee 
missing. 

Found under a house in the Borgo Nuovo, Rome, built in 1856. Formerly in Palazzo Lorenzana, 
Rome. 

Catharine Page Perkins Collection, 1896. 

Inv. 96.702. Ann. Rep. 1898, p. 21, no. 3. Matz-Duhn, Antike Bildwerke in Rom, II, no. 3659. 
Hauser, Die neu-attischen Reliefs, p. 79, no. 110. Reinach, Répertoire des reliefs, II, p. 201. 
Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 149, fig. 178. 

The pedestal is composed of a triangular shaft tapering towards the top, 
resting on an elaborately decorated base, and crowned by a projecting 
moulding, above which are placed three rows of inverted acanthus leaves. 
The angles of the base are occupied by the foreparts of griffins, with ibex 
horns and recurved wings. Beneath each wing is a large rosette. The space 
between each pair of griffins is filled with designs carved in low relief. In 
the centre a palmette develops downward from a pair of double spirals 
placed horizontally with a lotus flower at either side. Above, between the 
wings of the griffins, two similar double spirals are placed vertically side by 
side. The edges of the shaft have a beaded moulding. Its sides are panelled, 
and in each panel is the figure of a youth in high relief, standing on a pro- 
jecting shelf. Side A: A youth in front view, with his head in profile to 
left. His weight is on his right leg; his right elbow is sharply bent, bring- 
ing the hand to the level of the shoulder; the left hand rests upon the hip, 
and both hand and arm are covered by a chlamys which hangs from the left 
shoulder. A petasos hangs at his back. Side B: A youth standing with his 
head in profile to right, his back showing in three-quarter view. He rests 
upon his left leg; his right leg was advanced; his right arm is bent sharply, 
and the fingers are clasped as if holding some object, of which however 
there is no trace; a chlamys hangs from his left arm. Side C: A youth in 


[179 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


front view, with his weight on his right leg, the left being bent with the heel 
raised from the ground; the right arm hangs out a little from the body; 
the left is bent, and the forearm and hand projected towards the spectator; 
this figure is entirely nude. 

The pedestal is a work of the neo-Attic school, and belongs to a well- 
known type described by Hauser, op. cit. p. 18, type a. He cites in addi- 
tion to this example a pedestal in the Lateran Museum, no. 96, p. 65 
(Benndorf-Schoene, Bildwerke des lateran. Museums, no. 460, pls. xtv, xv), 
and another in Palestrina, no. 47, p. 35 (Matz-Duhn, op. cit. no. 3163). 
To these are to be added a pedestal in Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyp- 





totek, Billedtavler, no. 282, and one in the Conservatori Museum. All five 
examples are exactly alike except for the reliefs in the panels, which for the 
most part reproduce familiar neo-Attic types. Those on the present ped- 
estal are evidently inspired by statues in the round. The figure on side C 
is a copy of the Doryphoros of Polykleitos, and the heads of the other two 
show resemblance to the Polykleitan type. That on side A corresponds 
closely in pose with a statuette in the Barracco Museum in Rome, of which 
several other replicas are known, and which Furtwingler has connected 
with the Hermes of Polykleitos (Masterpieces, fig. 97, p. 238). 

On the decoration of the lower part of the pedestal ef. L. Curtius, Arch. 
Anz. XXV, 1910, col. 265 ff. 


[ 180 ] 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


102. Reiger REPRESENTING A SACRIFICE 


Fine-grained white marble. Greatest length, 0.61 m.; height, 0.283 m. 

The block is broken at both ends, and is preserved in two pieces, fastened together. It has suffered 
severely from fire: the surface is discolored and crackled, and bits of the figures and of the 
mouldings have flaked off. The figure at the left end is lost except for the left hand with half 
of the basket which it held, and a small piece of drapery appearing below the body of the goat. 
Of the goat only the head, the front part of the body and one hind hoof are preserved. The top 
of the priest’s head and his face are chipped off. Most of the head of the woman to his right, 
the face of the camillus, his left forearm and his feet are missing. 

Bought in Rome. Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 

Inv. 01.8205. Reinach, Répertoire des reliefs, II, p. 202. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, 
p. 181, fig. 223. 


This relief is a fragment of an architectural member the original use of 
which is not clear. The greater part of the surface is occupied by a frieze, 





representing a Roman sacrificial scene, carved in low relief on a back- 
ground 19 cm. high, enclosed at the top by a narrow taenia, and at the 
bottom by a band carved roughly to indicate the ground on which the 
figures stand. Below are two narrow fasciae, then a retreating moulding 
with a plastic leaf pattern, and at the bottom a round fillet. Near the right- 
hand end of the fragment are traces which show that the central, decorated 
portion of the block was set forward 5 cm. from the adjacent surface at 
either side. This was apparently smooth, with a moulding at the top, 
traces of which remain. The centre, given approximately by the altar, and 
exactly by the location of three cuttings in the soffit, is distant 30 cm. 
from the preserved right-hand edge of the decorated portion, which was 


BIstal 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


consequently 60 cm. long, and can have contained no more than the six 
figures of which there are remains. The block seems to have served as a 
lintel over a small opening in a wall, for the soffit is carefully smoothed, 


and the cuttings in it, though difficult to explain, prove that it was 


exposed. 

The centre of the composition is occupied by a small, rectangular altar 
shown in perspective, hung with garlands, and with a fire burning on it. 
To the right of it the priest stands in front view, pouring a libation from a 
patera held in his right hand. He is bearded, and wears a long robe, girded 
above the waist, with sleeves to the elbows, and a mantle which is drawn 
up over his head, with one end falling upon his left shoulder and arm, while 
its other end passes under his right arm, and is held in front of him by his 
left hand. From the right a woman walks towards him, looking back over 
her shoulder at a boy. In her raised left hand she holds a dish with three 
sacrificial cakes. She wears a long dress and a short mantle. The boy, a 
camillus, stands in front view, looking towards the woman. He holds a 
pitcher for lustral water in his right hand; his left forearm was extended. 
He is clad in a short tunic girded at the waist, and with elbow sleeves. At 
the left of the altar a man advances, holding an axe in his raised left hand, 
and looking down at the recalcitrant victim, a goat, which he is dragging 
along by the horns. He wears the usual garb of the victimarius, a cloth 
fastened about the loins and covering the thighs, to which is added a short 
cloak clasped on the right shoulder and covering his left shoulder and arm. 
At the left are the scanty remains of the figure of a woman who stood be- 
hind the goat, holding a box, or a basket, covered by a cloth, in her raised 
left hand. 

The composition is well balanced, the poses of the figures lifelike and 
varied. The execution is precise and detailed, the background being care- 
fully smoothed with a slight polish, and the figures carved upon it in a 
sharp, cameo-like style. The work is probably to be assigned to the Au- 
gustan period. 


[ 182 ] 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


103. FRAGMENTARY RELIEF OF A RECLINING MAN 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.29 m.; greatest width, 0.235 m. 

Broken at the top and the left side. The man’s forehead is chipped, and there are other 
slight injuries. 

From Italy. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 

Inv. 00.311. Ann. Rep. 1900, p. 29, no. 8. 


The fragment includes the upper part of the figure of an old man reclin- 
ing, in profile to left, upon a couch covered with drapery. He is smooth- 





shaven, bald above the forehead, and has short, straight hair. His face, 
which is much wrinkled, shows strength and individuality. He wears a 
short-sleeved tunic and a mantle covering his left arm. He leans upon his 
left. elbow, and holds in his left hand a large, two-handled vase. Over his 
wrist hangs a cord with clusters of ring-shaped objects (three in each) 
fastened to it at intervals. His right arm, which is broken off above the 
elbow, is extended in front of him. Above it are traces of an object which 
has not been identified. At the head of the couch, close to the right edge 
of the slab, is a tree with a vine twined about it, the two bound together by 


h183.1] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


a fillet. The man’s head is in high relief, and modelled realistically with 
great detail; the rest of the composition is flatter, and, with the exception 
of the vase, more sketchily treated. 


104, 105. Two Parts or a DecoraTIvE RELIEF 





Marble. Height, 1.04 m.; length of A, 1.392 m., of B, 1.378 m. 

102. Incomplete at the right end, where it is cut off vertically. 103. Incomplete at the left end. The 
upper left hand corner is broken off, and a piece is cut out of the border at the top. 

From Torre Annunziata. 

Francis Bartlett Collection, 1903. 

Inv. 03.747, 03.748. Ann. Rep. 1903, p. 59, nos. 18, 19. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 185, 

fig. 230. 

The slabs come from the two ends of a long panel surrounded by a 
border 28 cm. wide, with richly carved mouldings. At the outside is an 
astragalus, next to this a leaf and dart moulding, then a band of oak 
leaves, finally a second astragalus. The interstices of the patterns are 
hollowed out deeply, with undercutting, by means of the drill. The panel 
of each slab is occupied by a griffin carved in low relief, that in no. 102 
standing in profile to right with his left paw raised, that in no. 103, placed 


symmetrically with the other. The tails of the monsters develop into elabo- 
[ 184 J 


ae 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


rate scrolls of acanthus. On the ground at the left edge of no. 103 are 
remains of the paw of a similar animal. Since it is impossible to restore 
another griffin here, the paw may have belonged to one leg of a tripod. 
The designs are executed in a lively spirit, with an understanding of the 
decorative effect of a strong play of light and shade. In this respect they 


4 
iat? 





resemble Flavian reliefs. The moulding of the border recalls most closely 
those on a Flavian altar in the Lateran (Strong, Roman Sculpture, pl. 
XXKIK De Lol): 


106. Reuier oF MITHRAS SLAYING THE BULL 


Italian marble. Height, 0.65 m.; width, 0.84 m. 

Incomplete at the top and right edge. Of the figures little is missing except the head of 
Mithras and the body of the dog. 

From Rome. 

Anonymous gift, 1892. 

Inv. 92.2692. Ann. Rep. 1892, p. 16, no. 1. Gazette des beaux arts, 1912, vol. VII, p. 70. 
Reinach, Répertovre des reliefs II, p. 200, no. 4. 


The slab, originally very nearly square, has a simple frame within 
which is a representation in rather high relief of Mithras Tauroktonos. 
Mithras, having leaped upon the back of the bull, and pulled his head up, 


[185 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


is plunging a short sword into his throat. A serpent lies along the ground, 
its tail coiled about one of the bull’s hind legs, and a dog is leaping at the 
throat of the bull. The usual scorpion is not represented. Mithras wears 
an oriental costume with tight sleeves, trousers, boots, and a short cloak. 
The tunic is belted above an overfold. The cloak is fastened by a large 
round brooch, and streams out behind. Its folds, as well as those of the 
ends of the tunic, are deeply undercut. The bull is sinking upon the ground, 
and lashes his tail in the death agony. 

The cult of the Persian divinity Mithras, practised in Asia Minor from 
early times, began to spread through the Roman Empire during the first 








century A.D. Its popularity among the Roman soldiery accounts for the 
great number of monuments relating to it which have been discovered all 
over the ancient world. They have been most fully discussed by Cumont, 
Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aux mystéres de Mithra. The present 
relief, which is far above the average as regards the quality of the sculpture, 
is to be placed early in the series, probably in the second century A.D. 


[ 186 ] 


GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD 


107. Votive Reuier To ARTEMIS ANAiTIS AND M&n TIAMu 


Coarse-grained, white marble. Height, 0.72 m.; width, 0.43 m.; thickness, 0.06 m. 

Injured at the top, bottom, and right side. 

Brought “‘from the Levant”’ before the middle of the nineteenth century, the relief was for 
many years exhibited among the curiosities of the old ‘“‘ Boston Museum,”’ a hall at- 
tached to a theatre. 

Gift of Mrs. Charles A. Cummings, 1894. 

Inv. 94.14. Ann. Rep. 1898, p. 18. J. H. Wright, Harvard Studies, VI, 1895, pp. 55-74, 
Dit. 





“On the upper part of the front surface there is a panel upon which are 
represented in low relief a man, child, woman, and second child (the last 
fragmentary), standing in a row from left to right, en face, each with the 
right arm raised from the elbow, palm turned out, and thumb separated 
from the fingers. The attitude is the familiar one of adoration. The man 
and the boys wear the short sleeveless chiton and the long himation, the 


[187 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


latter thrown under the right arm and over the left shoulder. The woman 
wears a short himation similarly thrown, and the long chiton. What ap- 
pears to be an object held in the left hand of the boy in the middle is per- 
haps only a piece of the untrimmed marble, and the tassel-like appendage 
near the left hand of the woman is nothing more than the rudely-cut end 
of the himation. In artistic character this sculptured relief is crude, stiff, 
and lifelessly conventional. The design, as often on tablets of this sort, 
does not exactly fit the inscription, which speaks of only one child. Hence 
we may infer that the slab with its relief was not made to order, but was 
selected by the devotees from a stock of ready-made stones as the one 
coming nearest to their needs. 

‘Above the panel was probably once an ornamental coping, which has 
been sadly mutilated. The right edge of the slab is likewise incomplete, 
being broken off from top to bottom. 

“Below the relief stands the inscription, in letters of the style current in 
Asia Minor, and especially in eastern Lydia, about 200 a.p. The inscrip- 
tion is perfectly preserved except that each line lacks at the end from two to 
four letters.” (Wright.) 


"Aprewide ’Avaeire KLal Mn- | 
vi Trauou Movaais B [kai ] 
Kadrryevera 7) oi Bios ab- | 
100 brép Movoaiov rol 6 vod | 
5 paprupobtyres ras dLuva- | 
pus TOY Ody arédul Kav | 
Thy ebxnv: Erous ora: [un(vos) | 


Aelov t. 


“To Artemis Anaitis and Mén Tiamu: Musaes, son of Musaes, and 
Kalligeneia his consort, on behalf of Musaes their son, in testimony to the 
powers of the gods, have paid their vow. In the year 281, the 10th of the 
month Dios (A.p. 196?).’’ 

An exhaustive commentary on this inscription is given by Wright, l. c. 


[188 J 


ROMAN PORTRAITS 


108. Portrait Bust oF a ROMAN 





Terra-cotta. Height, 0.857 m.; length of face, 0.17 m. 

In perfect preservation, except for some slight abrasions. 

Found in the neighborhood of Cumae. 

Purchased by contribution, 1901. 

Inv. 01.8008. Ann. Rep. 1901, p. 31. M.F. A. Bulletin, II, 1904, p. 22 (quotation of a statement 
by Furtwangler). Furtwingler-Urlichs, Denkméiler griechischer und rémischer Skulptur,’ 1911, 
p. 177, fig. 62. Sieveking, Miinchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 1911, p. 12, fig. 14. 
Delbriick, Antike Portrdts, pl. 31. Hekler, Greek and Roman Portraits, pls. 144, 145. 
Sieveking, Die Terrakotten der Sammlung Loeb, II, p. 45. Swift, A. J. A. XXVII, p. 296, 
fig. 12. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 173, fig. 206. 


[ 189 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


This is a life-size portrait of an elderly man, whose face indicates a char- 
acter combining force, refinement, and keen intelligence. The head is 
turned to its right, and the eyes look slightly upward. The bust is of the 
early form, which continued in use through the Julio-Claudian period. 

The man is clean-shaven, and has straight hair, which has begun to 
grow thin above the forehead. This is high, rounded, and somewhat 





broader at the top than at the brow. The nose is aquiline, the mouth firm, 
with a thin upper lip. His age appears most conspicuously in the looseness 
of the flesh covering the square jaw and hanging in folds below the chin. 
There is a large scar on the left side of the forehead. 

The work appears to be unique among Roman portraits in terra-cotta in 
that the mask was produced directly from a mould taken from the face of 
the subject, and worked over by the artist only where it was necessary. 
The back of the head, including the ears, and the bust were modelled free- 
hand, as were also the eyes and the hair. But the surface of the face shows 


[ 190 ] 


ROMAN PORTRAITS 


an amount of detail which can only be explained on the theory that it is a 
mask. The lines on the forehead, as well as the scar, give this impression, 
especially if one compares the rendering of such lines on a head modelled 
entirely free-hand, like the portrait of Cicero in Mr. Loeb’s collection 
(Sieveking, Die Terrakotten der Sammlung Loeb, II, pls. 104, 105). More 
convincing proof, however, is furnished by numerous minute, barely per- 
ceptible wrinkles in the skin, especially on the left cheek. The variation in 
technique can best be appreciated by comparing the rendering of the eyes 
with that of the surfaces around them. The hand of the artist is apparent 
not only in the sketchily incised iris and pupil and the fine lines indicating 
the eyebrows, but also in the somewhat hasty modelling of the upper lids 
and of the crow’s-feet at their outer extremities. The use of a mask is sug- 
gested also by the pinched appearance of the end of the nose. 

The question has been raised whether the mask was taken from the 
living face, or after death. It was customary in Rome, from early times on- 
ward, to make wax death-masks, which were used at the funeral and later 
placed in the family atrium. The moulds, which were carefully preserved, 
could be, and doubtless were, used by sculptors in making portrait statues 
and busts. Life-masks may well have been taken for a similar purpose, 
though the practice is not clearly attested. In the present case the aston- 
ishingly living quality of the portrait makes it difficult to believe that the 
mould was taken after death. A definite argument in favor of the theory 
that a life-mask was used is perhaps afforded by a peculiarity of the nose. 
The greater width of the right nostril suggests that it was plugged with a 
tube to enable the man to breathe while the mould was being made. 

There seems to be no clue as to the identity of the subject; nor can the 
date of the work be fixed within narrow limits. It is to be assigned to the 
closing years of the republic or to the beginning of the imperial era. 


109. Heap or AUGUSTUS 


Fine-grained Italian marble. Height, 0.433 m.; length of face, 0.19 m. 

The base of the neck is worked for insertion, probably in a draped statue; it was fastened by five 
iron pins. A small piece has been inserted in the lower right side of the bust, in front. The 
crown of the head is of a separate piece, attached, but this is evidently original. The missing 
rim of the left ear was also worked separately and attached with the help of two iron pins. With 
these exceptions the preservation is well-nigh perfect. 


[191] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


Found at Ariccia, near Rome, between 1787 and 1796. Formerly in the collection of Cardinal 
Despuig, archbishop of Valencia, at Raxa, near Palma, in the island of Majorca. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1899. 

Inv. 99.344. Ann. Rep. 1899, p. 31, no. 9. Catalogue of the Despuig collection, by Don Joaquin 
Maria Bover, Palma, 1845, no. 22. Visconti, Museo Pio Clementino, VI, p. 180, note 1. 
Visconti-Mongez, Iconographie romaine, II, p. 30. Hiibner, Bullettino dell’ I nstituto, 1861, pp. 





104 ff. (p. 108, no. 22). The same, Antike Bildwerke in M adrid, p. 297, no. 717. Bernoulli, 
Rémische Ikonographie, II, 1, p. 40, no. 72. Arndt-Bruckmann, Griechische und rémische 
Portrdts, pls. 704,705. M.F.A. Bulletin V, 1907, p. 2. Delbriick, Antike Portréts, pl. xiv1t, 
figs. 18, a and b. An engraving of the head by Morghen, British Museum, Print Room, 
Raphael Morghen, Series XI, no. 4. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 177, fig. 213. 
This head, from a draped statue of heroic size, is a strongly idealised 
representation of the emperor. Yet a comparison with the numerous ex- 
tant portraits shows that it is a faithful likeness, accurately reproducing 
his fine, clear-cut features as well as the stern and cold expression character- 
istic of him. The neck is bent to the left, the head is inclined and slightly 
turned to the right. The hair is rendered in short, pointed locks, somewhat 
disordered, and more elaborately carved than is usual. The low, broad 
forehead has a horizontal crease faintly chiselled across it; the level brows 


[ 192 ] 





ROMAN PORTRAITS 


are slightly lowered, with two vertical furrows between them; the eyes are 
deeply shadowed, and have a cold, piercing glance. The long, shapely nose 
is slightly aquiline; the thin lips are tightly compressed; the cheeks are 
lean; and the chin is firm. The head is narrower at the level of the ears, 
and these stand out less than in many of the portraits. 

Augustus, in this portrait, appears younger than in the famous statue 
from Prima Porta, which is supposed to have been made after the Parthian 
war, when he was forty-three years old. But a close dating of the head is 
impossible, for the sculptor has evidently represented the emperor as age- 
less rather than youthful. 


110. Heap or AuGuUSsTUS 





Fine-grained Italian marble. Height, 0.31 m.; length of face, 0.18 m. 

Broken at the base of the neck. <A large part of the left side of the crown of the head has been lost 
by an oblique fracture. The end of the nose is missing; both ears are injured; and there is some 
incrustation of the surface of the face. 

Gift of Edward W. Forbes, 1906. 

Inv. 06.1873. Ann. Rep. 1906, p. 58. M. F. A. Bulletin V, 1907, p. 1. Chase, Greek and Roman 
Sculpture, p. 177, fig. 212. 

[ 193 |] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


This is a realistic portrait of Augustus showing him as a man of mature 
years. It is thus in strong contrast to the preceding head. ‘His face has 
no longer the round outlines of youth; the cheeks are slightly sunken, giv- 
ing prominence to the cheek bones; lines of age are shaping themselves 
about the mouth; the vertical wrinkles of the forehead, between the eyes, 
lightly indicated in the representation of the boy, are here accentuated; 
the firm chin has become sharp; enough of the nose remains to show its 
aquiline shape.” The muscles on the neck are prominently rendered. The 
ears are large, and stand out from the head more than in the preceding 
portrait. The details of the hair are less deeply carved. 


111. Heap or TiIBErivus 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.41 m.; length of face, 0.17 m. 

The base of the neck is worked for insertion. The lower part of the nose is missing, and 
there are small breaks in the hair, and in the edge of the veil. Otherwise in excellent 
preservation. 

“Probably from Civité Lavinia” (Lanciani). 

Purchased through Comm. Lanciani, 1888. 

Inv. 88.346, Ann. Rep. 1888, p. 9, no. 1. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 179, fig. 
216. 

The head, which was made separately for insertion in a statue, is turned 
and inclined very slightly to the right. A portion of the toga is drawn up 
over the back of it, like a veil, from which it may be inferred that Tiberius 
was represented in the guise of a sacrificing priest, standing, draped in the 
toga, and probably holding a patera in his right hand. 

The identification is to be regarded as certain; for the head shows, in 
addition to the well-known Claudian characteristics, the broad, flat cra- 
nium and the projecting ears, certain of the individual traits by means of 
which the portraits of Tiberius have been distinguished from those of other 
members of the family. The hair is carved in thick, irregular locks ending 
in a straight line across the forehead. This is broad and flat, swelling 
slightly above the brows, but with a nearly vertical outline, as on the coins 
of Tiberius. The eyes are widely opened, almost staring. Enough of the 
nose remains to show that it was of aquiline shape. The lower part of the 
face narrows down to the prominent, pointed chin. The resemblance to the 
accepted portraits appears most strongly in the rendering of the mouth. 


[ 194 ] 


ROMAN PORTRAITS 


The lips are thin; the lower one recedes somewhat, and there is a deep de- 
pression between it and the chin. 

Bernoulli, Rémische Ikonographie, I, I, pp. 144 ff., has collected fifty- 
eight heads, the majority of which he regards as authentic portraits of 
Tiberius. To his list may be added, besides this head, three examples in the 





Glyptotek Ny Carlsberg, Billedtavler, 623-625, and a head found in the 
American excavations at Corinth in 1913, A. J. A. XXI, 1921, pp. 248 ff., 
pls. vi, x. These works vary widely among themselves, representing 
the emperor at different periods of his long life. In the majority, as here, 
he is shown as a comparatively young man. None of them is to be ranked 
with the best portraits of Augustus. The most recent discussion of the 
subject is by Swift, A. J. A., loc. cit. 


112. Porrrair oF AGRIPPA (?), IN RELIEF 


Greek marble. Height of the fragment, 0.34 m.; width, 0.325 m.; thickness, 0.07 m. 

Part of the original top of the slab is preserved. The background is broken off below the chin and 
along the back of the head. The rim of the ear is broken. The top and rear surfaces of the slab 
are left rough. 

From Athens. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1899. 

Inv. 99. 347. Ann. Rep. 1899, p. 33, no. 12. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 182, fig. 224. 


[195 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


This is perhaps a fragment from a large relief representing a group of 
figures. It contains the portrait head of a middle-aged man, in profile, to 
right, carved life-size in low relief. He is clean-shaven, and his hair is 





arranged in short locks, lightly carved on the surface. The features show 
a marked resemblance to those of Agrippa, the general of Augustus, 
especially in the forms of the deeply set eyes and the firm mouth and chin. 


118. Bust or Carus CaEsaR 
Diorite. Height, 0.405 m.; length of face, 0.155 m. 


The tip of the nose is restored; the rims of the ears are chipped; and the surface is somewhat worn. 
Acquired through Comm. Lanciani. 

Gift of Mrs. Samuel D. Warren, 1890. 

Inv. 90.163. 

The head is evidently a portrait of a youthful member of the family of 
Augustus. It has a broad cranium, thickly covered by long, smooth locks 
of hair, the details of which are not worked out deeply except in the central 
locks over the forehead. The ears stand out somewhat, increasing the ap- 
pearance of breadth which the upper part of the face has in comparison 


with the lower part. The small eyes are set under slightly lowered brows, 


1 The identification was suggested by Dr. F. Poulsen. 


[ 196 ] 


ee 


ROMAN PORTRAITS 


giving a somewhat sinister expression to the countenance. The nose is 
straight, and the lips are thin, with a deep depression between the lower 
one and the narrow, prominent chin. The head is turned sharply to the 





right; the bust is of the Julio-Claudian form. The surface of the flesh 
is polished, that of the hair left slightly rough. 

This bust is to be added to the well-known series of heads which have 
traditionally been labelled as portraits of Caligula, and which are discussed 
by Bernoulli, Rém. Ikonogr. II, I, pp. 301 ff. The type, however, shows no 
strong resemblance to the coin portraits of this emperor, nor to the de- 
scriptions of his physiognomy which have come down to us. The require- 
ments are much better met by another series of heads, as Studniczka has 
shown (Arch. Anz. XXV, 1910, pp. 532, 533). According to him the heads 
of the traditional Caligula type are probably portraits of Caius Caesar, the 
son of Agrippa and grandson of Augustus — a theory which would account 
for the resemblance to the former in the forehead and eyes and to the latter 


in the general shape of the head. 
[197] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


Only three of the heads of this type are certainly antique. The present 
example may possibly have been made in the Renaissance, like several 
others executed in colored stones (basalt, porphyry, etc.). But neither 
technique nor weathering definitely suggests that the head is not ancient. 


114. Portrarr Heap or A ROMAN 





Palombino. Height, 0.33 m. 

Broken off at the junction with the neck. Most of the nose is missing; the ears, chin, 
temples, and right cheek-bone are injured. 

Bought in Rome. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1899. 

Inv. 99.343. Ann. Rep. 1899, p. 30, no. 8. Arndt-Bruckmann, Griechische und rémische 
Portrdts, 811, 812. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 174, fig. 207. 


This is the portrait, above life-size, of an old man, clean-shaven, and 
either completely bald or with his hair all shaved close. At the back of the 
skull the surface is left slightly rough, but this is plainly due to neglect, not 
to an attempt to indicate hair. The head is broad and massive, with promi- 
nent cheek-bones, a large, firm jaw, and tightly closed mouth. The skull is 
high at the crown; and the back of the head, seen in profile, makes an al- 
most straight line from the crown to the neck. All the individual details of 
the subject — the ugly cutline of the skull, the furrowed forehead, the 


[ 198 ] 


ROMAN PORTRAITS 


swellings beneath the eyes, the loose flesh hanging in folds and creases 
about the mouth and jaw — are executed with unsparing realism. 

The person represented has not been identified. The material, a very 
hard volcanic stone, is said to have been used in Rome only at the end of 
the Republican period. 


115. Portrrair Bust oF A ROMAN 





Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.345 m. 

The neck is broken into four pieces which have been put together without restoration, leaving 
slight breaks on the right side and a small hole on the left. The tip of the left ear is missing. 
There are some remains of incrustation on the left side. 

Found at Prima Porta. 

Catharine Page Perkins Collection, 1896. 

Inv. 96.699. Ann. Rep. 1896, p. 24, no. 7. Hekler, Greek and Roman Portraits, pl. 198 (there 


stated to be in the Lateran Museum). 

The bust is of the small, Julio-Claudian form, and the head is turned to 
the right. It represents a man of between forty and fifty years of age, clean- 
shaven, with hair brushed forward, and ending in a nearly straight line 
across the top of the forehead. Its surface is fairly smooth, with short 


[199 J 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


locks lightly chiselled upon it. The face is lean, with a high forehead and 
large, aquiline nose; the lips are firmly closed; the ears stand out some- 
what. 

In the Annual Report this head is identified as Corbulo, but the resem- 
blance to the authenticated portraits of Corbulo (Louvre 923, Arndt- 
Bruckmann, Portrdts, 298; Capitol, Stanza dei filisofi 48 = Arndt- 
Bruckmann 296) is very slight. It also bears a certain resemblance to a 
head in the Uffizi Palace, Florence, which was wrongly included by Ber- 
noulli among the portraits of Corbulo (Rém. Ikonogr. I, p. 275, fig. 41, ef. 
Arndt-Bruckmann, Portrdts, pls. 299, 300). The arrangement of the hair 
and the form of the bust show that the work is to be assigned to the first 
half of the first century A.D. 


116. Smautt Portrait Bust or A ROMAN 





Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.155 m. 

Part of the nose is broken off; the right eyebrow, the chin and the edge of the bust are injured. 
Bought in Rome. 

Francis Bartlett Fund, 1913. 

Inv. 13.230. Ann. Rep. 1913, p. 87. 


[ 200 ] 


ae 


Re = + 


ROMAN PORTRAITS 


The head is finely poised on a long, slender neck, and looks to its right. 
It represents a man of middle age, with long and narrow face, aquiline 
nose, prominent cheek-bones, lean cheeks and hollows at the temples. 
There is a deep, vertical furrow in the middle of the forehead, and a slight 
fullness under the eyes; several creases are chiselled across the front of the 
neck. He is clean-shaven, and his hair is treated as a smooth mass with 
irregular rows of locks lightly incised upon it. 

On the evidence of the treatment of the hair and the bust form the 
work is to be assigned to the Julio-Claudian period. 


117. Smautu Portrait Heap or Aa Man. 


Pentelic marble. Height, 0.09 m. 
Broken off near the top of the neck. The end of the nose is missing. 
From Athens. 


Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 
Inv. 01.8199. 





This is a portrait of a man of mature years, clean-shaven, and with 
thick hair falling in large, irregular locks, which are carefully carved on the 
forehead, but only sketchily indicated on the crown. The skull is high and 
rounded, the face broad, with prominent cheek-bones. The eyes are set 
nearly on a plane with the brows. The ears are large. 


[ 201 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


118. Portrait Bust or A Roman Woman 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.35 m. 

Preserved intact, except for the tip of the nose which is restored in plaster. 

From Capua. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1899. 

Inv. 99.345. Ann. Rep. 1899, p. 32, no. 10. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 179, fig. 218. 


The head is turned slightly 
to its right, and the bust is of 
the Julio-Claudian form, in- 
cluding only the upper part of 
the shoulders and breast. The 
features are those of a mature 
woman of strong and straight- 
forward character. Her face is 
of a rather square shape, with 
high cheek-bones, aquiline 
nose, large and firm mouth, 
and powerful jaw. Her hair is 
divided by two parallel part- 
ings into three portions. The 


ward to form a roll above the 
forehead, and is then divided 
into two braids which are 
wound around the head; the 
lateral portions are drawn in 
wavy strands along the sides 
of the head, covering the tips of the ears, to the back of the neck, where 
the ends of all three portions are gathered into a small knot. The surface 
above the braids is smooth, save for fine, parallel lines engraved on it. 
This style of wearing the hair, with some variation in details, was in 
vogue throughout the reign of Augustus. It is illustrated first on coins of 
Fulvia (43-30 B.c.), and lasted into the reign of Tiberius (cf. Paully- 
Wissowa, Realencyclopaedie, VII, p. 2135). 

In the Annual Report this head is identified as a portrait of Octavia, the 


[ 202 J 





middle portion is brushed for- - 


1 
8 
$ 
q 





ROMAN PORTRAITS 


sister of Augustus, because of its alleged resemblance to a basalt bust in the 
Louvre. But, apart from the correspondence in the coiffure, the likeness is 
not sufficient to show that the two represent the same person. Moreover, 
the identification of the basalt bust is itself far from certain (cf. Bernoulli, 
Rém. Ikonogr., II, I, p. 116). The head also shows little of the beauty 
ascribed to Octavia by Plutarch, and no trace of family resemblance to 
Augustus. It must therefore be included among the numerous unidentified 
portraits of Roman women of this period. 


119. Portrait Heap oF A GIRL 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.225 m. 

The piece includes the whole of the neck, its base 
being worked as if for insertion. The end of 
the nose is broken off, and the right side of the 
forehead is slightly injured. 

Found at Prima Porta. 

Catharine Page Perkins Collection, 1896. 

Inv. 96.697. Ann. Rep. 1896, p.23, no.8. Poulsen, 
Greek and Roman Portraits in English Country 
Houses, p. 61, fig. 38. 


This is a portrait, somewhat under 
life-size, of a little girl with full cheeks 
and a small mouth drawn in at the 
corners with a slightly smiling expres- 
sion. Her hair is parted in the middle 
and carried in waves to the sides of 
the head, covering all but the lobes 
of the ears; the shorter locks at the 
front end in little curls on either side 
of the forehead; a braid is laid along the top of the head from the forehead 
to the crown. The hair at the back is unfinished. 

On the evidence of the coiffure the head is to be dated in the Julio- 
Claudian period. 





[ 203 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


120. SEATED STATUE OF A WOMAN 


Fine-grained Greek marble. Height, 1.175 m. 

The statue was either originally made separately from the seat, which is not preserved, or cut from 
it later. There are numerous indications of a second use. The front and back of the upper part 
of the body have been sawn in two, and fastened together again; the left shoulder has been 
sawn off, and replaced; two fragments broken from the joint on the right side have been re- 
placed, perhaps by new pieces; the front of the footstool and part of the left foot have been 








worked off. The head, which is missing, was made separately. The right forearm was also’ 
made of a separate piece; it has been refastened, with some restoration in plaster of the 
drapery at the elbow; the thumb and fingers are broken off. Its clumsy execution suggests 
that it dates from the second use. The missing left arm was also worked separately. The in- 
step and great toe of the left foot have been restored in plaster. Some small fragments of 
drapery have been refastened, and a few others have been restored in plaster. The surface, 
now worn in places, had a slight polish. 

Found at Vasciano, near Todi, in Umbria, in the ruins of a Roman bath of the second or third 
century A.D. 


[ 204 J 


P 
& 
4 
é 
5 

o 





ROMAN PORTRAITS 


Francis Bartlett Collection, 1908. 

Iny. 03.749. Ann. Rep. 1903, p. 58, no. 11. Pasqui, Notizie degli Scavi, 1900, p. 253. Reinach, 
Gazette des beaux arts, 1909, vol. I, p. 197 (cf. p. 200). Amelung, Rom. Mitt. XVI, 1901, p. 29. 
Von Mach, Greek and Roman Sculpture, pl. 319. Bulle, Der schéne Mensch,? figs. 97, 98, p. 364. 
Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 180, fig. 219. 


The figure is seated with her feet on a footstool placed obliquely before 
her chair; the right foot is drawn back, the left advanced and held in such 
a way that only the ball of the foot touched the stool. Her right arm is 
stretched out to the front; the left arm was drawn back, and probably 
raised. She wears sandals, the straps of which were indicated only by paint, 
and an Ionic chiton of thin material which has slipped down a little on the 
right shoulder, revealing an undergarment. A himation covers her back, 
one end falling over her left shoulder and arm, the other carried across her 
lap and covering her legs. 

There is a suggestion of the style of the late fifth century B.c. in the 
treatment of the clinging chiton with its small, rippling folds, and in the 
design of the folds of the himation on the left side, which appear as if 
stirred by a breeze (cf. the remarks of Amelung, l. c.). But the execution of 
the details of the drapery is characteristic of the time of Augustus. The 
elaborate, deeply hollowed folds are stiff and angular, skilfully carved, 
but producing a restless effect. Compare the simpler treatment of the 
fragment, no. 47. A statue in Wilton House (Michaelis, Ancient Marbles in 
Great Britain, p. 694, no. 117; Clarac, pl. 498 A, no. 1131 E) is a replica, as 
Amelung has noted. 

The figure, inspired by a Greek type, was probably made to serve as a 
portrait statue, both in its original and its second use. It is therefore in- 
cluded here, together with the two following statues, in the series of Roman 
portraits, though the heads are missing in all three cases. 


121. Portrait STATUE OF A ROMAN WOMAN 


Pentelic marble. Height, 1.23 m. 

Missing, the head, the left foot and ankle, the lower part of the right leg, and the lower folds of 
the himation near the left leg. A break runs across the legs just above the knees. Some of 
the drapery folds are injured, and a small portion, just below the left arm, is restored in plaster. 
The surface in general is well preserved, with a brown patina. 

Bought in Rome. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 

Inv. 01.8191. Ann. Rep. 1901, p. 35. Von Mach, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 350, pl. 320. 
Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 180, fig. 220. 


[ 205 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


The slender figure stands with her weight on the right leg, the left being 
bent at the knee and the foot drawn back slightly. She wears a chiton 





which is visible only over the breast, 
and an himation enveloping most of 
her body, including the right arm and 
hand. This hand rests on the thigh, 
and holds up some folds of the dra- 
pery. Her left arm is bent at the 
elbow, and the hand grasps lightly 
the rolled edge of the himation, which 
passes from the right shoulder across 
the breast, and is thrown over the arm 
with its ends hanging down her side. 
A small, spiral curl shows on the left 
side of her neck, and a signet ring is 
on the ring finger of her left hand. 
This type of draped female figure 
goes back to the fourth century B.c., 
and was frequently used, with varia- 
tions in details, throughout the Hel- 
lenistic and Roman periods. The 
present example is a Roman work, 
apparently the portrait statue of a 
lady of the Claudian age, for the curl 


on the neck suggests that the hair was dressed in the style affected by 


Agrippina the Elder. 


On the Greek origin of this type see Amelung, Die Basis des Praxiteles 
aus Mantinea, p. 47, and for other Roman examples cf. the statue in the 


Vatican, Braccio Nuovo 77, Amelung, Die Skulpturen des vat. M useums, I 


) 


p. 94, pl. 13, and further replicas there cited. 


[ 206 J 


ROMAN PORTRAITS 


122. STATUE OF A ROMAN IN ARMOR 


Pentelic marble. Height, 1.09 m. 

Preserved down to the bottom of the leather pendants, the lower surface being roughly worked 
(perhaps in modern times). The missing head and right arm were made separately. The left 
arm is missing from just below the shoulder, together with most of the mantle. A large piece 
of marble has split off from the back on the left side. In the back, just below the neck, is a 
large, rectangular hole. The edges of some of the leather pendants are broken, the face of the 
palladium is worn away, and the fastening of the shoulder piece is injured. 

Bought in Florence; said to have been brought there from Rome. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1899. 


Inv. 99.346. Ann. Rep. 1899, p. 33, no. 11. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 177, fig. 214. 
This is apparently a fragment from a statue of a Roman emperor. The 
figure stood with the weight on the left leg; the right arm was raised, and 
probably held a spear; the left was lowered. The costume consists of a 
short tunic which is visible only on the left upper arm, a metal cuirass with 
a leather lining terminating at the bottom and at the arm holes in broad, 
loose strips with fringed ends, and a paludamentum, or military cloak, a 
portion of which shows above the left shoulder, while the remainder hung 
down the back, with its end probably thrown over the left forearm. 

The cuirass is modelled in imitation of the bodily forms which it covers, 
and is richly decorated in low relief. On the right shoulder-piece (the left is 
covered by the cloak) is a floral pattern ending below in a lion’s head which 
held a ring in its mouth. It can be seen that this was tied to a correspond- 
ing ring on the cuirass. In front, between the shoulder-pieces, is a gorgo- 
neion with two snakes tied together beneath the chin. The main design 
consists of a palladium with a figure of Victory on either side of it. The 
image stands full front, in an archaic pose, upon a cylindrical base, which is 
supported by an inverted flower. She wears a helmet, an Ionic chiton and 
an aegis covering both breasts, brandishes a spear (indicated only by faintly 
incised lines) in her raised right hand, and has a large shield on her left arm. 
The Victories have long wings outspread, and wear the short chiton of 
kalathiskos dancers. The one to the left is dancing on tip-toes, with face 
bent downwards and hands held at her breast. The other stands on tip- 
toes, raising her hands to the shield, perhaps in order to tie a fillet upon it. 
Below and at both sides of this group is a floral design composed of an in- 
verted palmette from the base of which issue graceful scrolls ending in 
flowers. Two rows of pendent plates are attached to the bottom of the 


[ 207 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


cuirass, each decorated in relief, as follows. In the upper row the two 
central plates have each two ram’s heads set back to back; then, to right 
and left, a winged head of Medusa of the beautiful type, in three-quarter 
view; then, to the right, a facing head with horns rising above the middle 
of the forehead, and, to 
the left, a facing gorgo- 
neion of the ugly type; 
then, to the right an 
elephant’s head, and, to 
the left, a lion’s head. 
In the lower row, the 
three central plates 
show alion’s head; then, 
on either side, a lion’s 
scalp; then, to the right, 
a floral ornament, and, 
to the left, a helmet. The 
plates at the back have 
floral designs less care- 
fully executed. A num- 
ber of small holes, 


plates in a somewhat 
arbitrary manner, are 
apparently intended to 
add to the decorative 
effect: it is unlikely that 
they served for the at- 
tachment of metal or- 
naments. The render- 
ing of the spear of the palladium and of subordinate details of the floral 
ornaments merely by incised lines shows that the sculptural decoration was 
supplemented, and its effect heightened, by the application of colors. 

The statue is an excellent example of its class. Even in its fragmentary 
condition the torso is full of life. The leather strips are treated as if stirred 





[ 208 |] 


drilled into most of these: 





eR GS oh Ye aad lt 


ROMAN PORTRAITS 


by the motion of the right thigh; the folds of the paludamentum on the 
shoulder are carefully studied; the reliefs on the cuirass are freshly and 
delicately carved. A torso in the Vatican, Galleria delle statue 248 (Ame- 
lung, Die Sk. d. vat. Mus. II, p. 405, pl. 45) is so closely related in style, as 
well as in the pose and the relief decoration, as to suggest that the two 
statues came from the same workshop. The example in the Vatican has 
been dated, by von Rohden, Die Panzerstatuen mit Reliefverzierung, Bon- 
ner Studien, p. 13, in the second half of the first century A.D. 

For a list of Roman statues in armor see Wroth, J. H.S. VII, 1886, 
pp. 126 ff., with von Rohden’s additions, op. cit. pp. 17 ff. Cf. also Hekler, 
Jahreshefte, XVIII, XIX, 1919, pp. 210 ff. 


123. Portrait Heap oF A RoMAN WoMAN 


Coarse-grained Greek marble. Height, 0.31 m.; length of face, 0.177 m. 

Broken off at the base of the neck. The upper part of the hair over the forehead was made 
of a separate piece which is missing. The tip of the nose is restored in plaster. 

Bought in Rome. 

Francis Bartlett Collection, 1903. 

Inv. 03.744. Ann. Rep. 1903, p. 58, no. 13. 





This is the portrait of a woman with full, round and rather fine features. 
Her hair is arranged in a variety of the Flavian coiffure: it is carried high 
above the forehead in irregular, wavy strands worked out deeply with the 
drill, and is gathered into a large knot behind, below the crown. A small 


[ 209 | 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


lock falls on either side of the neck. The forehead is low ; in the profile 
view its outline is perpendicular, making a pronounced angle with the 
nose. The chin is prominent, and has a slight cleft in the middle. The 
eyes are large and widely opened; the iris and pupil are not rendered 
plastically; but the hair of the eyebrows is indicated by incised lines. 
The mouth is small, and the lips are thin. 

The hairdress and the carving of the eyebrows serve to date the head at 
the close of the first century a.p. The person represented has not been 
identified. 


124. Portrait Bust or a Smatut Boy 


Greek marble. Height, 0.245 m.; length of 
face, 0.09 m. 


Missing, the tip of the nose. The surface has 
suffered slightly from cleansing with acid. 


Bought in Naples. 
Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 


Inv. 01.8202. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculp- 
ture, p. 181, fig. 221. 


This is the portrait of a boy two 
or three years old, with a round head, 
high at the crown, and soft, plump 
cheeks and chin. The eyes have an 
intent look; the lips are slightly 
parted. The hair is brushed forward 
from the crown in wavy locks, and 
is cut off in a horizontal line low 
on the forehead. 

The fact that the bust is draped 
and includes more of the breast 
than is usual in the Julio-Claudian 
period suggests that the portrait is to be dated in the second half of the 
first century A.D. 





[ 210 ] 


ROMAN PORTRAITS 


125. Heap or MARCIANA 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.26 m.; length of face, 0.155 m. 

Broken off at the top of the neck. Parts of the nose and of the right ear are missing, and 
there are other slight injuries. Except for some incrustation on the right side of the 
face the surface is in excellent condition, with a patina of a warm, ivory tone. 

Said to have been found at Subiaco. 

Arthur Knapp Fund, 1916. 

Inv. 16.286. Ann. Rep. 1916, p. 96. M.F.A. Bulletin, XIV, 1916, p. 36. Chase, Greek and 
Roman Sculpture, p. 186, fig. 233. 


The head is a portrait of a Roman lady who may be assumed to have 
reached middle age in the reign of Trajan, for she wears her hair in a style 





very similar to that illustrated on the coin portraits of the emperor’s sister, 
Marciana, and her daughter Matidia. A narrow band of hair, laid in flat 
curls on either side of a central parting, borders the forehead. Above this a 
series of fourteen cylindrical puffs rises almost vertically in the form of a 
diadem, A small curl hangs in front of each ear. The back hair is divided 


[211] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


into a number of separate strands which are wound together loosely, and 
laid in a thick coil around the crown of the head. 

This coiffure was not worn only by Marciana and Matidia; but since 
their portraits were undoubtedly made in larger numbers than those of 
private persons of the time, the question naturally arises, in the case of 
heads with the hair similarly dressed, whether they represent one of these 
members of the imperial family. The attempts hitherto made to establish 
the portrait of Marciana are far from convincing (cf. Bernoulli, Rém. 
[konogr. II, 2, pp. 96 ff.). Some of the heads which have a slight similarity 





to the coins in profile are too youthful, since Marciana was at least fifty 
years of age when Trajan became emperor; and none of them show any 
trace of the resemblance to her brother which may reasonably be assumed. 
All the requirements are, however, admirably fulfilled by the present head. 
The coins struck in honor of Marciana after her death (cf. the illustration) 
show her as an old woman, over sixty-five years of age; whereas the marble 
head represents a woman some fifteen years younger. Allowing for this 
lapse of time between the two portraits the resemblance is striking. The 
outline of the forehead, with its indentation at the root of the nose, is the 
same in both; and the formation of the lips and chin corresponds closely, 
except for the more pronounced furrow running from the nose to the end 
of the mouth on the later likeness. The discrepancy in the hairdress is. also 


[ 212 ] 


ROMAN PORTRAITS 


accounted for by difference in date between the two portraits. Aside from 
the fact that the marble head lacks the metal diadem appearing on the 
coin, the single series of large curls rising vertically above the forehead 
is more closely related to Flavian coiffure than are the two receding 
rows of flame-like locks shown on the coin and on other Trajanic heads. A 
resemblance to the well-known portraits of Trajan is also plainly recog- 
nizable. It appears most strongly in the formation of the upper jaw, the 
straight, thin lips, and the small but prominent chin with the deep depres- 
sion above it. A comparison with a head of Trajan in the Ny Carlsberg 
Museum (Rém. Mitt. X XIX, 1914, pl. m1) reveals also a likeness in the 
shape of the forehead, the size and setting of the eyes and the modelling 
of the upper part of the cheeks. 

Aside from its iconographic value the head is of interest as showing that 
Trajanic portraiture, though showing no trace of idealization or striving 
for dramatic effect, is not to be classed as inferior to that of the Flavian 
period. The head is an intimate and living likeness of a woman of simple, 
forceful character, somewhat severe, yet not lacking in charm. A certain 
intensity is imparted to the gaze by the treatment of the shadows under 
the brows and the eyelids, which are salient and sharply cut. The eye- 
brows are rendered by rows of oblique, incised lines in the usual manner 
of this period, but the iris and pupil were left to be indicated by color. 
Whatever coldness there may be in the expression of the eyes is, however, 
more than atoned for by the delicate modelling of all the individual 
details of the lower part of the face. An equal skill and care have been 
bestowed upon the literal rendering of the tasteless, artificial coiffure. 


126. ToMBSTONE OF PETRONIA HEDONE AND HER SON, 
Lucius PrTronius PHILEMON 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.565 m.; width, 0.495 m. 

The top and back of the slab are smoothed, the sides left slightly rough. A small, round hole, as 
if for a pipe, is drilled through the middle of the relief. The noses of both heads are broken off; 
otherwise the preservation is almost perfect. 

Bought in Naples. Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1899. 

Inv. 99. 348. Ann. Rep. 1899, p. 34, no. 13. 


A shallow niche, rounded at the top and with a slightly projecting shelf 
below, occupies the upper two-thirds of the slab. In it are placed, side by 


[ 213 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


side, the busts of Hedone and her son Philemon, carved in high relief. 
She is a middle-aged woman of severe, but not unpleasing countenance, 
with deep-set eyes, prominent cheek-bones and a firm mouth. Crow’s-feet 
are indicated at the corners of the eyes, and the full, loose flesh about the 





mouth is deeply lined. Her hair is arranged above the forehead in a high, 
pointed coiffure, and a mass of braids is coiled about the crown of the head. 
The bust includes the shoulders and the breast. Her dress is fastened above 
each shoulder by strings tied in a knot. Part of an undergarment shows at 
the left side. Philemon has the soft, undeveloped features of a boy of per- 
haps ten years of age. His thick hair is arranged in short, wavy locks. He 
wears a tunic and a mantle hanging over his left shoulder. On both heads 
the pupils of the eyes are indicated by small drilled holes set just below the 
upper lids. 


214 J 


ROMAN PORTRAITS 


The lower third of the slab is treated as a panel, containing the following 

inscription: 
PETRONIA - HEDONE - FECIT - SIBI 
ET - L- PETRONIO- PHILEMONI - FILIO 
ET - LIBERTIS - LIBERTABUSQUAE 
POSTERISQUAE - EORUM 

‘“‘Petronia Hedone made (this monument) for herself and for Lucius 
Petronius Philemon, her son, and for her freedmen and freedwomen and 
their descendants.” 

The hairdress of Hedone is a simplified variety of the Trajanic coiffure, 
the principal feature of which was a high structure of some sort above the 
forehead. The bust form here illustrated came into use in the Flavian 
period. The plastic indication of the pupils did not become general till 
the time of Hadrian, but there are examples of its use earlier. The relief 
may, therefore, be dated in the opening years of the second century A.D. 
It is to be classed with the admirable Flavian and Trajanic studies of 
middle class Romans, of which the well-known relief of the shoemaker Gaius 
Julius Helius (Strong, Roman Sculpture, pl. cx1t) is a typical example. 


127. Portrait Hap oF 
A GIRL 


Highly crystalline, Greek marble. Height, 
0.22 m.; length of face, 0.14 m. 


Broken off at the neck. Missing, most of the 
nose. The ears, the braid and the fillet are 
injured. The right side is uninjured. 


Said to have been found at Corinth. 
Catharine Page Perkins Collection, 1896. 
Inv. 96.698. Ann. Rep. 1896, p. 24, no. 9. 


This is a portrait of a little girl, 
with a lifelike and rather sad expres- 
sion. Her eyes are large, with heavy 
lids; the eyebrows are rendered plas- 
tically. She has prominent jaws and 
thick lips, suggesting a strain of 
negro blood. Her hair is arranged in a series of large, flat waves en- 
circling the head, and held in place by a round fillet. A braid is wound 


[215 J 





GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


about the crown. The surface of the waves is smooth, with lines incised 
upon them at intervals. 

The head is to be dated in the Flavian or the Trajanic period, judg- 
ing from the plastic rendering of the brows and the sharp carving of 
the eyelids. 


128. Portrait Bust oF A ROMAN Woman 


Fine-grained, Italian marble. Height, 0.48 m.; length of face, 0.143 m. 

The tip of the nose, the ears and the edges of the bust are slightly injured, and parts of the forehead 
have been chipped off as a result of a blow. Otherwise the preservation is excellent. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1904. 

Inv. 04.284. Ann. Rep. 1904, p. 57, no. 10. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 188, fig. 238. 


This is the portrait of a Roman lady of perhaps thirty years of age, with 
a coiffure resembling that of the empress Faustina the Elder. A mass of 
braids is coiled about the top of the head; below this, broad, elaborately 
waved locks pass from the brow to the back of the head where the hair is 
arranged in a vertical roll which joins the coil of braids on the crown. Her 
face is oval in shape, with rather broad cheeks and a small chin. The eyes 
are small and set close together, with iris and pupil faintly incised ; the 
nose is rather aquiline, the mouth expressive, the jaw firm. The neck is 
long and slender, and the head is beautifully poised, looking to the right 
and inclined in the same direction. The bust, which includes the breast 
and the greater part of the shoulders, is covered by a simple, close-fitting 
garment, and has a small tablet at the bottom. The surface of the marble 
is lightly polished. 

Faustina the Elder died in 141 a.p. On the evidence of the coiffure the 
bust is, therefore, to be dated about the beginning of the reign of 
Antoninus Pius. 


[216 J 











[217] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


129. Portrrair Heap or A MAN 


Fine-grained, slightly greyish, Asiatic marble. Height, 0.33 m.; length of face, 0.165 m. 

Broken off at the base of the neck. Missing, the greater part of the nose and of the right ear, and 
the lobe of the left ear. The lower lip and the chin are injured, and the surface of the hair on the 
right side is worn. On the same side there are remains of the yellowish-brown paint with which 
the hair was colored. In the hair are also remains of a thick, cream-colored substance, which 
was probably deposited there accidentally, since there are slight traces of it also in the ears 
and on the neck. 

From Tralles. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1899. 

Inv. 99.349. Ann. Rep. 1899, p. 34, no. 14. Hekler, Greek and Roman Portraits, pl. 229. 

The head, which has perhaps been broken from a statue, is turned 
sharply to the left, and the eyes look in that direction. It is a realistic 
portrait of a middle-aged man of keen and nervous temperament. He is 
smooth-shaven, and has thick, curly hair, which was colored yellowish- 
brown. The locks about the forebead are worked out in great detail with 
the help of the drill. At the back they are flatter and without drill marks. 
The surfaces of the curls are covered with finely engraved lines. The face 
is lean, with its bony structure clearly defined. The forehead is prominent 
and narrow, slightly lined, and with two vertical creases above the nose. 
Lightly engraved lines mark the eyebrows. The eyes are very small, set 
close together and deep under the brows, with drooping upper lids and 
prolonged lachrymal glands rendered as a groove with a drill hole at the 
end. The rim of the iris is faintly incised; the pupil is sunk, and a curved 
groove runs from it diagonally to the upper lid, suggesting the reflected 
light on the eyeball. Crow’s-feet are indicated at the corners of the eyes. 
The nose is marked off from the forehead by a depression. The cheek- 
bones are prominent, the cheeks hollow, with a fold of flesh at either side 
of the nose. The upper lip is long, and the mouth is closed in a hard, thin 
line. The outlines of the sides of the face and of the jaw are straight, and 
meet each other in an angle. The ears are large. The skin cf the neck is 
creased, and has the same leathery appearance as that of the face. The 
surface of the flesh is highly polished. 

Many of the physiognomical peculiarities here enumerated, such as the 
size and setting of the eyes, the shape and size of the ears, the long upper 
lip, the hollow cheeks, the angular outline of the jaw, the leathery skin and 
creased neck, are duplicated in a well-known portrait in Athens, National 


[ 218 ] 


ROMAN PORTRAITS 


Museum, no. 351 (Arndt, Griechische und rémische Portrats, pls. 343, 344), 
which Crowfoot, on inadequate grounds, has proposed to identify as the 
Thracian king Kotys (J. H. S. XVII, 1897, p. 321, pl. x1). The principal 








differences are that the hair of the Athenian head is longer and less curly, 
and that the face is broader, as well as milder in expression. But the like- 
ness is so striking as to suggest that the two are portraits, if not of the 
same person, at least of members of the same family (ef. Ann. Rep.). On 
the other hand, the Athenian head has generally been dated in the Hellen- 
istic period (Arndt, 1. c.; Klein, Geschichte der griechischen Kunst, III, 
p. 197), whereas the present head shows what are regarded as the unmis- 
takable technical characteristics of portrait sculpture in the second century 


[ 219 J 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


A.D., 1. e. the high polish of the surface, the plastic rendering of the eye- 
brows, iris and pupil, and the working of the hair with the drill. The re- 
semblance must therefore be regarded as a coincidence, unless the Athenian 
head can be brought down to the later date. No plausible theory as to the 
identification of either head has yet been advanced. The type of the face 
and the lack of a beard, which was regularly worn from the time of Hadrian, 
suggest that the person represented by the present head was not a Roman. 

Both as regards truth of characterisation and skill of workmanship the 
head is far superior to the great mass of Roman portraits of the Hadrianic 
and Antonine periods, of which the bust, no. 131, affords an average ex- 
ample. It resembles more closely in details of technique several heads 
found in Asia Minor or in Athens, e.g. the head from Miletopolis 
(Ath. Mitt. X XIX, 1904, pls. xxv, xxv1), the head in Athens (National 
Museum, no. 420; Delbriick, Antike Portrdts, pl. 46), and two heads in 
Brussels which Cumont assigns to the school of Aphrodisias (Catalogue des 
sculptures et inscriptions antiques des Musées Royaux du Cinquantenaire, 
nos. 39, 40). But none of these shows the realistic treatment which dis- 
tinguishes this portrait. 


130. Portrait Bust or A RoMAN 


Translucent marble, resembling alabaster. Height, 0.82 m.; height of face, 0.17 m. 


The whole of the bust, including the base, is antique, and preserved intact, except for a few 
slight breaks in the hair and the drapery. Portions of the surface have been cleansed with 
acid. 


Gift of Denman W. Ross, 1924. 
Iny. 24.419. 


Portrait of a young man, life-size, looking to his right. He has very 
thick, curly hair and an incipient moustache and beard. The mass of hair 
stands out far on either side, and covers the tips of the ears. Its details 
are elaborately worked with the drill, the curls over the forehead being 
deeply undercut. The eyebrows, which are indicated plastically, slope 
down towards the nose. The eyes are large, with prominent eyeballs on 
which the iris and pupil are incised. The nose is delicately shaped, the lips 
are full, and there is a pronounced cleft in the chin. The modelling of the 
surface of the face is soft; and the neck has an almost feminine appearance, 


[ 220 J 


ROMAN PORTRAITS 


with three horizontal creases. The flesh-parts and the drapery are highly 
polished. 

The bust is of the Antonine form, including the whole of the breast and 
the beginning of the arms. A bit of the tunic shows under the heavy folds 





of the cloak, which is fastened on the right shoulder by a brooch in the 
shape of a four-petalled flower. The hems of the garments are indicated by 
incised lines. 

The work is to be dated in the Antonine period, and in two respects — 
the thick curly hair and especially the prominent eyeballs — it recalls the 
portraits of Marcus Aurelius and his son, Commodus. But a comparison 
with the youthful portraits of these emperors in the Capitoline Museum, 
Sala degli Imperatori, nos. 37 and 48, shows that it certainly cannot repre- 
sent the latter and probably not the former. The general proportions of 


[ 221 ] 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


the face, the sloping lines of the eyebrows, the forms of the nose and the 
lips are not unlike those of Marcus Aurelius; but his chin, as shown on 
coins as well as marble heads, did not have a deep depression as in this 
head. The subject, therefore, remains unidentified. 


131. Portrait Bust or A Roman 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.86 m. 

The whole of the bust, including the base, is antique. It has been broken at the neck and through 
the tablet of the base. Missing, the tip of the nose and a small piece from the left side of the 
neck. The bust and the upper part of the base were made in one piece; the lower part of the 
base is of coarse-grained marble; a large pin 
of marble or limestone held the two together. 

Said to have been found in Spain. 

Henry L. Pierce Fund, 1901. 

Inv. 01.8193. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculp- 
ture, p. 188, fig. 239. 

A life-sized portrait of a bearded 
man of middle age, looking to his left. 
The hair falls upon the forehead in 
long, straggling locks parted in the 
middle and deeply undercut by means 
of a drill. The rest of the hair and 
beard is more simply carved without 
drill holes. The face is long and nar- 
row, especially at the chin; the cheek- 
bones are prominent, and the cheeks 
sunken. The eyebrows are indicated 
plastically, the iris is incised, and the 
pupil treated as a hollow circle witha 
continuation in a curved line running 
upwards to the right. The surface 
of the face is slightly polished. 

The bust is of the large form, including the breast and the beginning of 
the arms, which was introduced in the Antonine period. It is draped in the 
paludamentum, or military cloak, fastened by a large, round brooch on the 
right shoulder. | 

The portrait is to be dated in the latter part of the second century A.D. 


[ 222] 





ROMAN PORTRAITS 


132. Portrait — Heap or A ROMAN 


Bronze. Height, 0.31 m. 

Broken from a statue. Hollow-cast; the shell about 2 mm. thick. Missing, part of the back of 
the head, with all the neck except for a piece in front. A portion of the skull in the region of 
the right ear has been bent in, and a fragment, including most of the ear and some locks of 
hair behind it, has been refastened. There is also a dent in the skull over the left temple, and 





a small hole in front of the left ear. The surface is slightly corroded, and covered by a 
dark patina. ; 
One of the series of bronzes found in the Tiber near Ponte Sisto, and now, with this exception, 


in the Museo delle Terme. 
Catharine Page Perkins Collection, 1896. 
Inv. 96.703. Ann. Rep. 1896, p. 27, no. 3. Lanciani, Excavations, p. 25. Dehn, Rém. Mitt. XXVI, 


1911, p. 253, figs. 10 and 11. 


The head is turned slightly to the left and looks in that direction. It is 
the portrait of an elderly man, with thick hair arranged in short, curly 


[ 223 J 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


locks, and close-cut moustache and beard. The forehead is deeply furrowed, 
the nose slightly aquiline, the lips thin and pressed tightly together. Deep 
lines run from the nose to the corners of the mouth, and the flesh on the 
cheeks and under the eyes is loose and flabby. The hair of the eyebrows 
and of the moustache and beard is rendered by small indentations, which 
were evidently made with a blunt tool in the clay model, not worked in the 
bronze after the casting, as was the practice in Greek times and in the 
Augustan age. Similarly the eyeballs were cast with the head, instead of 
being made of another material, and inserted. The rim of the iris is incised, 
and the pupil deeply hollowed. The only details worked directly in the 
bronze are the finely engraved lines on the locks above the forehead and on 
the sides of the head. 

The subject has not been identified. A suggestion, advanced in the 
Annual Report, that the head may represent Antoninus Pius in his later 
years, has been rightly rejected by Dehn, who dates it about 200 a.p. It 
seems, however, distinctly later in style than the bronze head of Septimius 
Severus in Brussels (Furtwangler, Sammlung Somsée, pl. xxxt). The 
short beard is characteristic especially of portraits of the third century A.D. 
beginning with Caracalla. On the other hand, it is probably to be placed 
earlier than the bronze head of Maximinus in Munich (F urtwiangler, 
Miinchner Jahrbuch fiir bildende Kunst, 1907, pp. 8 ff.; Delbriick, Antike 
Portrdts, pl. 52), the bronze portrait of Trebonianus Gallus in the Metro- 
politan Museum (Greek, Roman, and Etruscan Bronzes, no. 350), and marble 
portraits of that date, like the head of Balbinus, no. 175. Another bronze 
head from the same find, published by Paribeni in Rom. Mitt. XXVIII, 
1913, p. 119, fig. 3, is related in style. 

A restoration of the statue, with the use of a fragment of drapery and 
a boot in the Museo delle Terme, has been attempted by Dehn, loc. cit., 
fig. 11. In his drawing the head is erroneously turned to the right. 


[ 224 J 


ROMAN PORTRAITS 


133. Portrait oF C. Memmius CakcILIANUS PLACIDUS (?) 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.39 m. 

The base of the neck is worked for insertion in a statue. The missing tip of the nose is restored 
in plaster, and a lock of hair over the right ear is broken off. 

Found in June, 1886, in the foundation of a house belonging to Sig. Besi at the corner of the Via 
Cavour and the Piazza dell’ Esquilino, Rome, together with two headless statues and the 
fragments of the marble pedestal mentioned below. 

Purchased through Comm. Lanciani, 1888. 

Inv. 88.349. Ann. Rep. 1888, p. 10, no. 4. 





The head is a portrait of a man, of perhaps forty years of age, with a 
full, round face, and large, protuberant eyes, and wearing a short beard and 
moustache. His hair is rather long and wavy. It lies flat on the top of the 
head, but is worked out more in detail with the help of the drill above the 
forehead where it is parted in the middle, as well as in front of the ears and 
in the nape of the neck, where it falls in heavy locks. The eyebrows are 


[ 225 | 


GREEK AND ROMAN SCULPTURE 


rendered plastically, the irises are incised, and the pupils hollowed out, 
with a vertical ridge left in their upper part to suggest reflected light. 

A fragmentary pedestal said to have been found with the head, and 
published by Gatti, Bullettino Comunale, 1887, p. 179, has the following 
inscription: 

C-MEMMIO-M-F.- 

QVIR - CAEKCILIANO 

PLACIDO - COS - 

AVGVRI 

SEX - IVLIVS - A //// CVS 

FLORENTIVS - CVM 

SEX - IVLIO - ARRETIO - FEC 
AMICO 

INCOMPARABILI. 


The same person is apparently mentioned in a votive inscription to 
Minervia Matusia found at Sentinum in Umbria (Bull. del Instituto, 1850, 
p. 140): —(. . . Mem)mius Caecilianus (Placi)dus cos. Aug(ur). The 
latter was identified by Mommsen with M. Maecius Memmius Furius 
Baburius Caecilianus Placidus c(larissimus) v(ir), who was consul in 
343 A.D. and is mentioned in C. J. L. X, 1700. But the praenomen, Caius, 
shows that the two are to be distinguished. Furthermore, the style of the 
letters and the mention of the tribe Quirina prove that the pedestal is not 
later than the reign of Caracalla (Gatti, J. c.). Since the style of the head 
and the short beard forbid placing it earlier than that emperor, it is to be 
dated in the early years of the third century a.p. 


134. Bust oF THE EMPEROR BALBINUS 


Fine-grained marble. Height, 0.52 m. 

The end of the nose and the rims of both ears are broken off. The base of the bust is 
missing. 

Said to have been found in Villa Ludovisi, Rome. 

Purchased through Comm. Lanciani, 1888. 

Inv. 88.347. Ann. Rep. 1888, p. 1, no. 5. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture, p. 189, fig. 
240. 


This is a portrait of a man of from fifty to sixty years of age, bullet- 
headed, with a broad, round face, coarse features, a pronounced double 
chin and a thick neck. His hair and beard are cut close, in the style popu- 


[ 226 J 


ROMAN PORTRAITS 


lar in the second quarter of the third century a.p.; their texture is rendered 
by short strokes of a pointed chisel on a slightly raised smooth surface. 
The bust includes the shoulders and breast, and terminates below in an 








acanthus ornament, with a griffin at either side. A part of the paludamen- 
tum, fastened by a large, round brooch, hangs over the left shoulder. The 
head is turned to the right. 

Caelius Balbinus was made emperor by the Senate in 238 a.p., together 
with Pupienus, and in opposition to Maximinus, but was soon after put to 
death by the soldiers. The resemblance of this head to the portrait on his 
coins is close enough to make the identification fairly certain. It has, 
at least, better claims to represent this emperor than the marble head in 
Petrograd (Hermitage, no. 259), or the bronze one in the Vatican Library 
(Bernoulli, Rém. Ikonogr. I, 3, p. 128, pl. xxxv). 


[ 227 J 


LIST OF DONORS 


ANONYMOUS, 15, 19, 48, 65, 106. 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, 7, 8, 9. 

Francis BartLett Girt, 13, 28, 36, 38, 40, 44, 53, 63, 66, 67, 71, 92, 93, 94, 96, 98, 104, 
105, 120, 123. 

FRANCIS BarRTLETT Funp, 14, 60, 64, 116. 

Francis BARTLETT FUND AND SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION, 27. 

Mrs. SAMUEL CaBoT, 33. 

J. TEMPLEMAN COOLIDGE, JR., 52. 

Mrs. Cuartes A. Cummines, 107. 

Eayrprt EXpLoraTion Funp, 1, 2. 

Miss Mary Conway Fe.ron, Girt 1x Memory or, 34. 

CoNnTRIBUTION FROM Mrs. W. Scorr Fitz anp James Funp, 62. 

Epwarp WALDO Forsss, 82, 110. 

ELLEN Gray Funp, 31. 

C. 8. Hoveuton, 81. 

JuLiA BraprorD HuntTINeTON JAMES FUND AND SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION, 16, 49, 100. 

JAMES FUND AND CONTRIBUTION FROM Mrs. W. Scorr Frrz, 62. 





ARTHUR Knapp Funp, 125. 

CHARLES Henry PARKER, 89. 

CATHARINE PaGE Perkins Funp, 10, 18, 24, 26, 46, 47, 51, 56, 70, 74, 77, 78, 86, 101, 
115, 119, 127, 182. 

Henry LIvuir Pierce Founp, 4, 5, 6, 12, 17, 21, 22, 23, 25, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 
50, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 68, 69, 72, 73, 75, 76, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 95, 97, 
99, 102, 103, 109, 112, 114, 117, 118, 121, 122, 124, 126, 128, 129, 131. 

DrEnMAN WALpo Ross, 3, 130. 

NATHANIEL THAYER, 29. 

Epwarp Perry WARREN, 54. 

FiskE WARREN, 11. 

Mrs. SAMUEL DENNIS WARREN, 113. 


[ 228 J 


INDEX OF PUBLICATIONS CITED IN 
ABBREVIATED FORM 


Oh ol NL SS American Journal of Archaeology. 
Arndt-Amelung, Hinzelaufnahmen . Arndt-Amelung, Photographische Einzelaufnahmen 
antiker Skulpturen. 


Ohl, Ca” 2 Ee ae Archdologischer Anzeiger, Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des 
deutschen archdologischen Instituts. 

Arndt-Bruckmann, Portrdts ...... Arndt-Bruckmann, Griechische und rémische Por- 
trdts. 

EDGES ee an ra Mitteilungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, 
athenische Abteilung. 

PE re. ei Mien oe es Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. 

Berlin, Beschreibung ............. Beschreibung der antiken Skulpturen. 

PEPER OW OCRENSChT oi wes ces Berliner philologische Wochenschrift. 

Bernoulli, Rém. Ikonogr........... Bernoulli, Rémische [konographie. 

Brunn-Bruckmann-Arndt, Denk- Brunn-Bruckmann-Arndt, Denkmdler griechischer 

UIESS 1 la und rémischer Skulptur. 

10S) SUG 05 eg Annual of the British School at Athens. 

Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture. Chase, Greek and Roman Sculpture in American Col- 
lections. 

08s La ee ie a Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. 

LUCE es Diitzchke, Zerstreute antike Bildwerke in Florenz. 

rere inter =. ils a es Helbig, Fuhrer durch die éffentlichen Sammlungen 


klassischer Alterttimer in Rom. Dritte Auflage 
herausgegeben unter Mitwirkung von Walter 
Amelung, Emil Reisch, Fritz Weege. 1912. 


SSE AGS I eR aE Jahrbuch des deutschen archdologischen Instituts. 

STE & ae ee eee Jahreshefte des ésterreichischen archdologischen In- 
stitutes. 

Sete, oo. fat wa ace aes Journal of Hellenic Studies. 

Journ. intern. d’arch. num. ....... Journal international d’archéologie numismatique. 

Peer MAT Belgrano Ve, wae Matz-Duhn, Antike Bildwerke in Rom. 

Miinchner Jahrbuch ............. Miinchner Jahrbuch fiir bildende Kunst. 

(oh, ACS OS Sa eer ear Revue archéologique. 

Pee TEM IAs of eles So a ero ee eS Mitteilungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, 


rémische Abterlung. 


[ 229 J 


INDEX OF INVENTORY NUMBERS 








Inventory 
umber 


84.67 
84.68 
84.71 
88.346 
88.347 
88.349 
88.730 
88.734 
90.163 
92.2692 
92.2741 
94.14 
95.66 
95.67 
96.694 
96.695 
96.696 
96.697 
96.698 
96.699 
96.700 
96.701 
96.702 
96.703 
96.712 
97.285 
97.286. 
97.287 
97.288 
97.289 
98.641 
98.642 
99.122 
99.338 
99.339 
99.340 
99.341 
99.342 
99.343 
99.344 
99.345 
99.346 
99.347 
99.348 


99.349 





Catalogue 
Number 


7 
8 
9 
1 


1l 


119 
127 
115 


101 


132 





Page 








Inventory 
Number 


99.350 
99.351 


00.304 


00.305 
00.306 
00.307 
00.308 
00.309 
00.310 
00.311 
00.312 
01.8008 
01.8190 
01.8191 
01.8192 
01.8193 
01.8194 
01.8195 
01.8196 


01.8197 
* 01.8198 


01.8199 
01.8200 
01.8201 
01.8202 
01.8203 
01.8204 
01.8205 
01.8206 
01.8207 


01.8208 


01.8216 
01.8217 
03.743 
03.744 
03.745 
03.746 
03.747 
03.748 
03.749 
03.750 
03.751 
03.752 
03.753 
03.754 





Catalogue 
umber 


79 
80 


123 


104 
105 
120 














Page || years 
156 03.755 
156 03.757 
152 03.758 
86 03.759 
170 03.760 
9 03.761 
83 03.762 
123 03.763 
174 04.10 
183 04.11 
W 04.12 
189 04.13 
142 04.14 
205 04.15 
95 04.16 
222 04.17 
87 04.283 
165 04.284 
166 06.1873 
167 07.487 
79 08.205 
201 08.249 
158 08.288 
51 10.70 
210 10.80 
146 10.159 
150 10.160 
181 10.161 
172 13.230 
122 14.526 
120 14.733 
161 15.856 
160 16.45 
68 16.62 
209 16.286 
138 17.324 
144 17.598 
184 18.426 
184 18.431 
204 18.436 
112 22.613 
89 22.593 
83 23.1 
25 24.419 
131 











Catalogue 
Number 


66 
44 


92 
98 


41 
128 
110 

82 

17 

89 

11 

29 

54 

16 

49 
100 
116 


130 





Page 





136 

97 
168 
175 








GENERAL INDEX 


Acqua Traversa, Ram’s head from, 39. 
Agrippa (?), Head of, in relief, 112. 
Akroterion, 17, 36. 

Alabaster, 1, 2. 

Alabastron, Hand holding, 16. 

Alexandria, Head from, 82. 

Alexikakos. See Herakles. 

Amazon, Statue of a mounted, 37. 

Amiternum, Statue from, 50. 

Ammon, Head of Zeus A., 66. 

Aphrodite, Torso of, 80; statuette of, 95, 
96; riding on a goose, statuette of, 36; 
head of, 28, 78, 79, 81. 

Apollo, Type of archaic, 1, 2. 

Arricia, Head from, 109. 

Architrave, from temple at Assos, 7, 8. 

Arsinoé II (?), Portrait of, 56. 

Arsinoé III, Portrait of, 58, 

Artemis, Head of, 61; Anaitis, votive re- 
lief to, 107. 

Aryballos, Youth holding, 11. 

Asklepios (?), Votive relief to, 48. 

Assos, Reliefs from the temple at, 7, 8; 
lion’s head from the temple at, 9. 

Athena, Head of, 6 (?), 30 (?), 97. 

Athens, Statue from, 41; head from, 15, 
18, 19, 21, 26, 28, 73, 97, 117; arm from, 
38; relief from, 48, 112. 

Augustus, Portrait of, 109, 110. 

Aurelia Secunda, Grave monument of,99. 





Balbinus, Portrait of, 134. 

Barbarian, Portrait of a, 59. 

Beard, Detachable (?), 57. 

Bronze, Portraits in, 56, 132. 

Boeotia, Grave reliefs from, 11, 12; 
painted stele from, 46. 


Caius Caesar (?) Portrait of, 118. 
Camillus, 102. 

Candelabrum, Triangular pedestal of, 101. 
Caprarola, Statue formerly in, 22. 


Capua, Statue from, 70; head from, 68, 
118. 

Ceglie, Relief from, 49. 

Centaurs, Reliefs of, 7. 

Chalk, 48. 

Chios, Head from, 29. 

Civita Lavinia, Head from, 111. 

Cock, 98. 

Coiffure of Roman Ladies, 118, 119, 121, 
123,120, 

Corinth, Head from, 127. 

Cuirass, 122. 

Cumae, Terra-cotta portrait from, 108. 

Cybele, Statue of, 50. 


Demainete, Figure of, on grave relief, 24. 
Demeter (?), Head of, 27. 

Diomedes, Head of, 67. 

Dionysos (?), Head of, 26. 

Diorite, 113. 


Ears, Swollen, 63, 64, 67, 74. 
Eubios, Figure of, on grave relief, 24. 


Faustina, the Elder, Coiffure of, 128. 
Flavian reliefs, Style of, 104, 105. 
Florence, Relief from, 99. 

Formiae, Head from, 66. 

Fountain figure, Statue used as a, 22, 36. 
Frascati, Statuette from, 76. 


Gabii, Head and torso from, 79, 80. 

Goat, led to sacrifice, 102. 

Goose, Aphrodite riding on a, 36. 

Gortyna, Head from, 35. 

Grave Monuments, Greek: Relief, 11, 12, 
13, 23; fragment from a, 16; female 
figure from a, 42; female head from a, 
42; Siren from a, 44; akroterion of a 
stele, 45; lekythos, 24; painted stele, 
46; statue of a lion, 10; of a boy, 38; 
head of a youth, 31. Roman: Tomb- 
stone of Aurelia Secunda, 99; of Hedone 
and Philemon, 126. 


[ 231 J 


GENERAL 


Griffin, Figure of, in relief, 104, 105; on 
candelabrum pedestal, 101. 


Hebe, Head of, on double herm, 90. 
Hedone, Tombstone of Petronia H., 126. 
Hekabe, 99. 

Herakles, Head of, 74; head of, on double 
herm, 90; statuette of, 64; small torso 
of (?), 65; Alexikakos, 47; adventure 
with Centaurs, 7. 

Herculaneum, Head from, 85. 

Hermes, Psychopompos, statue of. 7C; 
head of, 68; on a relief, 47. 

High girding, 36, 50, 51. 

Homer, Head of, 55. 

Horseman, Relief of a, 12. 

Hygieia, Type of, 32. 


Infant, Faun, head of an, 93; head of an, 
94. 

Inscriptions, Greek: 11, 24, 47, 107. Latin: 
99, 126, 133. 


Kallias, Figure of, on grave relief, 24. 

Kalligeneia, Figure of, on votive relief, 
107. 

Kallistarete, Figure of, on grave relief, 24. 

Kantharos, Arm and hand holding a, 35. 

Keratea, Head from, 48. 

Kresilas, Head of Diomedes by, 67. 


Leda with the Swan, Statue of, 22. 

Lekythos, Grave monument in the form 
of a, 24. 

Life-mask, 108. 

Limestone, 3, 4, 5, 10. 

Lion, Head of a, 9; seated, statue of a, 10. 

Ludovisi Throne, Companion-piece to the, 
ili: 

Lydia, Votive relief from, 107. 


Marciana, Portrait of, 125. 

Marsyas, Statuette of, 87, 88. 
Memphis, Bronze head from, 56. 
Mén Tiamu, Votive relief to, 107. 
Menander (?), Portrait of, 86. 
Mirror, Woman holding a, 23. 
Mithras Tauroktonos, Relief of, 106. 


INDEX 


Musaés, Figure on votive relief, 107. 
Moustache, Painted, 2. 

Mullet, 17. 

Mylasa, Head from, 25. 

Myron, Style of, 64. 


Naukratis, Statuette from, 1; head from, 
2: 

Negress (?), Portrait of a, 127. 
Neoptolemos, 99. 

Niké Apteros, Fragment from the frieze of 
the temple of (?), 19. 

Neo-Attic School, 99, 100, 101. 





Oil-pourer, Replica of head of, 73. 
Oinornp.a, 47. 


Paint, Traces of, 2, 5, 10, 13, 46, 68. 

Palombino, 95, 114. 

Pattern on drapery, 53. 

Pediment, Figure from a, 37. 

Perachora, Lion from, 10. 

Pergamene School, 87, 88. 

Petasos, On head of Hermes, 68. 

Petronia. See Hedone. 

Petronius. See Philemon. 

Pheidias, Style of, 18, 62. 

Philemon, Tombstone of Lucius Petro- 
nius P., 126. 

Pholos, 7. 

Piraeus, Relief from, 47. 

Placidus, C. Memmius Caecilianus, por- 
trait of, 133. 

Polos, 25. 

Polykleitos, Style of, 68, 69, 70, 101. 

Pomegranates, 11, 17. 

Ponte Sisto, Bronze portrait head from, 
131 

Portrait of a barbarian, 59; from Tralles, 
129. 

Portraits of Greeks: 56, 57, 58, 85, 86. 

Portraits of Romans: Republican (?) 108, 
114; Augustan, 109, 110, 112, 118; 
Julio-Claudian, 111, 113, 115, 116, 117, 
119; Flavian, 123, 124; Trajanic, 125, 
126, 127; Antonine, 128, 129, 130, 131. 
Third century, A.D., 132, 133, 134. 

Priam, Death of, 99. 


[ 232 ] 


GENERAL 


Praxiteles, Style of, 27, 28, 29, 81. 
Prima Porta, Head from, 115. 
Ptolemy IV, Philopator, Head of, 57. 


Ram, Head of a, 39. 

Rhodes, Head from, 30, 32. 

Rome, Sculptures found in or near, 17, 
36, 40, 64, 101, 182, 133, 134. 


Sacrifice, Relief representing a, 102. 
Sikyon, Head from, 5. 

Skopas, Style of, 74, 75. 

Smyrna, Statuette from, 96. 

Spain, Bust from, 131. 

Sphinxes, 8. 

Strigil, Athlete holding a, 76. 
Stucco, Hair added in, 57, 58. 
Subiaco, Head from, 125. 


Taranto, Head from, 6. 
Terra-cotta, Portrait bust in, 108. 





INDEX 


Thebes, Relief from, 11, 12. 

Three-sided relief, 17. 

Tiber, Statue found in the, 77; bronze 
head found in the, 132. 

Tiberius, Portrait of, 111. 

Torre Annunziata, Bust from, 86; reliefs 
from, 104, 105. 

Trachyte, 7, 8. 

Tralles, Head from, 129. 

Troad, Stele from the, 13. 

Tufa, 9. 


Vasciano, Statue from, 120. 
Veins, Indication of, 12, 64. 
Venus Pudica, Type of, 80. 
Victimarius, 102. 


Wings, On head of Hermes, 70. 
Wound, Scar of, 108. 


Zeus, Head of, 25; Ammon, head of, 66. 


[ 233 ] 











any CENTER, LIBRARY ne 


seum of Fine Pag 
Dishaw of Greek pe: oan sculpture, 


~ OMIM 


3 3125 00266 5285 






















































































